Text -- John 13:1-28 (NET)

Washing the Disciples’ Feet

13:1 Just before the Passover feast, Jesus knew that his time had come to depart from this world to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now loved them to the very end. 13:2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus. 13:3 Because Jesus knew that the Father had handed all things over to him, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, 13:4 he got up from the meal, removed his outer clothes, took a towel and tied it around himself. 13:5 He poured water into the washbasin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to dry them with the towel he had wrapped around himself. 13:6 Then he came to Simon Peter. Peter said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 13:7 Jesus replied, “You do not understand what I am doing now, but you will understand after these things.” 13:8 Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet!” Jesus replied, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” 13:9 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head!” 13:10 Jesus replied, “The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean. And you disciples are clean, but not every one of you.” 13:11 (For Jesus knew the one who was going to betray him. For this reason he said, “Not every one of you is clean.”) 13:12 So when Jesus had washed their feet and put his outer clothing back on, he took his place at the table again and said to them, “Do you understand what I have done for you? 13:13 You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and do so correctly, for that is what I am. 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you too ought to wash one another’s feet. 13:15 For I have given you an example– you should do just as I have done for you. 13:16 I tell you the solemn truth, the slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent as a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 13:17 If you understand these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

The Announcement of Jesus’ Betrayal

13:18 “What I am saying does not refer to all of you. I know the ones I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who eats my bread has turned against me.’ 13:19 I am telling you this now, before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I am he. 13:20 I tell you the solemn truth, whoever accepts the one I send accepts me, and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.” 13:21 When he had said these things, Jesus was greatly distressed in spirit, and testified, “I tell you the solemn truth, one of you will betray me.” 13:22 The disciples began to look at one another, worried and perplexed to know which of them he was talking about. 13:23 One of his disciples, the one Jesus loved, was at the table to the right of Jesus in a place of honor. 13:24 So Simon Peter gestured to this disciple to ask Jesus who it was he was referring to. 13:25 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved leaned back against Jesus’ chest and asked him, “Lord, who is it?” 13:26 Jesus replied, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread after I have dipped it in the dish.” Then he dipped the piece of bread in the dish and gave it to Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son. 13:27 And after Judas took the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” 13:28 (Now none of those present at the table understood why Jesus said this to Judas.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Joh 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover ( pro de tēs heortēs tou pascha ).

Just before, John means, not twenty-four hours before, that is our Thursday evening (beginning of 15th of Nisan, sunset to sunset Jewish day), since Jesus was crucified on Friday 15th of Nisan. Hence Jesus ate the regular passover meal at the usual time. The whole feast, including the feast of unleavened bread, lasted eight days. For a discussion of the objections to this interpretation of John in connexion with the Synoptic Gospels one may consult my Harmony of the Gospels , pp. 279-84, and David Smith’ s In the Days of His Flesh , Appendix VIII. The passover feast began on the 15th Nisan at sunset, the passover lamb being slain the afternoon of 14th Nisan. There seems no real doubt that this meal in John 13:1-30 is the real passover meal described by the Synoptics also (Mar 14:18-21; Mat 26:21-25; Luk 22:21-23), followed by the institution of the Lord’ s Supper. Thus understood Joh 13:1 here serves as an introduction to the great esoteric teaching of Christ to the apostles (John 13:2-17:26), called by Barnas Sears The Heart of Christ. This phrase goes with the principal verb ēgapēsen (loved).

Robertson: Joh 13:1

Knowing ( eidōs ).

Second perfect active participle, emphasizing the full consciousness of Christ. He was not stumbling into the dark as he faced "his hour"(autou hē hōra ). See Joh 18:4; Joh 19:28 for other examples of the insight and foresight (Bernard) of Jesus concerning his death. See on Joh 12:23 for use before by Jesus.

Robertson: Joh 13:1

That he should depart ( hina metabēi ).

Sub-final use of hina with second aorist active subjunctive of metabainō , old word, to go from one place to another, here (Joh 5:24; 1Jo 3:14) to go from this world (Joh 8:23) back to the Father from whom he had come (Joh 14:12, Joh 14:28; Joh 16:10, Joh 16:28; Joh 17:5).

Robertson: Joh 13:1

His own which were in the world ( tous idious tous en tōi kosmōi ).

His own disciples (Joh 17:6, Joh 17:9, Joh 17:11), those left in the world when he goes to the Father, not the Jews as in Joh 1:11. See Act 4:23; 1Ti 5:8 for the idiom. John pictures here the outgoing of Christ’ s very heart’ s love (chs. John 13-17) towards these men whom he had chosen and whom he loved "unto the end"(eis telos ) as in Mat 10:22; Luk 18:15, but here as in 1Th 2:16 rather "to the uttermost."The culmination of the crisis ("his hour") naturally drew out the fulness of Christ’ s love for them as is shown in these great chapters (John 13-17).

Robertson: Joh 13:2

During supper ( deipnou ginomenou ).

Correct text, present middle participle of ginomai (not genomenou , second aorist middle participle, "being ended") genitive absolute. Joh 13:4 shows plainly that the meal was still going on.

Robertson: Joh 13:2

The devil having already put ( tou diabolou ēdē beblēkotos ).

Another genitive absolute without a connective (asyndeton), perfect active participle of ballō , to cast, to put. Luke (Luk 22:3) says that Satan entered Judas when he offered to betray Jesus. Hence John’ s "already"(ēdē ) is pertinent. John repeats his statement in Joh 13:27. In Joh 6:70 Jesus a year ago had seen that Judas was a devil.

Robertson: Joh 13:2

To betray him ( hina paradoi auton ).

Cf. Act 5:3. Purpose clause with hina and second aorist active subjunctive of paradidōmi (form in -oi as in Mar 14:10 rather than the usual -ōi in Luk 22:4). Satan had an open door by now into the heart of Judas.

Robertson: Joh 13:3

Knowing ( eidōs ).

Repeated from Joh 13:1, accenting the full consciousness of Jesus.

Robertson: Joh 13:3

Had given ( edōken ).

So Aleph B L W, aorist active instead of dedōken (perfect active) of didōmi . Cf. Joh 3:31 for a similar statement with en instead of eis . See Mat 11:27 (Luk 10:22) and Mat 28:18 for like claim by Jesus to complete power.

Robertson: Joh 13:3

And that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God ( kai hoti apo theou exēlthen kai pros ton theon hupagei ).

See plain statement by Jesus on this point in Joh 16:28. The use of pros ton theon recalls the same words in Joh 1:1. Jesus is fully conscious of his deity and Messianic dignity when he performs this humble act.

Robertson: Joh 13:4

Riseth from supper ( egeiretai ek tou deipnou ).

Vivid dramatic present middle indicative of egeirō . From the couch on which he was reclining.

Robertson: Joh 13:4

Layeth aside ( tithēsin ).

Same dramatic present active of tithēmi .

Robertson: Joh 13:4

His garments ( ta himatia ).

The outer robe tallith (himation ) and with only the tunic (chitōn ) on "as one that serveth"(Luk 22:27). Jesus had already rebuked the apostles for their strife for precedence at the beginning of the meal (Luk 22:24-30).

Robertson: Joh 13:4

A towel ( lention ).

Latin word linteum , linen cloth, only in this passage in the N.T.

Robertson: Joh 13:4

Girded himself ( diezōsen heauton ).

First aorist active indicative of diazōnnuō (-umi ), old and rare compound (in Plutarch, lxx, inscriptions, and papyri), to gird all around. In N.T. only in John (Joh 13:4, Joh 13:5; Joh 21:7). Did Peter not recall this incident when in 1Pe 5:5 he exhorts all to "gird yourselves with humility"(tēn tapeinophrosunēn egkombōsasthe )?

Robertson: Joh 13:5

Poureth ( ballei ).

Vivid present again. Literally, "putteth"(as in Joh 13:2, ballō ).

Robertson: Joh 13:5

Into the basin ( eis ton niptēra ).

From verb niptō (later form of nizō in this same verse and below) to wash, found only here and in quotations of this passage. Note the article, "the basin"in the room.

Robertson: Joh 13:5

Began to wash ( ērxato niptein ).

Back to the aorist again as with diezōsen (Joh 13:4). Niptō was common for washing parts of the body like the hands or the feet.

Robertson: Joh 13:5

To wipe ( ekmassein ).

"To wipe off"as in Joh 12:3.

Robertson: Joh 13:5

With the towel ( tōi lentiōi ).

Instrumental case and the article (pointing to lention in Joh 13:4).

Robertson: Joh 13:5

Wherewith ( hōi ).

Instrumental case of the relative ho .

Robertson: Joh 13:5

He was girded ( ēn diezōsmenos ).

Periphrastic past perfect of diazōnnuō for which verb see Joh 13:4.

Robertson: Joh 13:6

So he cometh ( erchetai oun ).

Transitional use of oun and dramatic present again (erchetai ).

Robertson: Joh 13:6

Lord, dost thou wash my feet? ( Kurie ,su mou nipteis tous podas ).

Emphatic contrast in position of su mou (away from podas ), "Dost thou my feet wash?""Peter, we may suppose, drew his feet up, as he spoke, in his impulsive humility"(Bernard).

Robertson: Joh 13:7

I ... thou ( egō ...su ).

Jesus repeats the pronouns used by Peter in similar contrast.

Robertson: Joh 13:7

Not now ( ouk arti ).

Just now arti means (Joh 9:19, Joh 9:25). Used again by Jesus (Joh 13:33) and Peter (Joh 13:37).

Robertson: Joh 13:7

But thou shalt understand hereafter ( gnōsēi de meta tauta ).

Future middle of ginōskō (instead of the verb oida ) to know by experience. "Thou shalt learn after these things,"even if slowly.

Robertson: Joh 13:8

Thou shalt never wash my feet ( ou mē nipsēis mou tous podas eis ton aiōna ).

Strong double negative ou mē with first aorist active subjunctive of niptō with eis ton aiōna (for ever) added and mou (my) made emphatic by position. Peter’ s sudden humility should settle the issue, he felt.

Robertson: Joh 13:8

If I wash thee not ( ean mē nipsō se ).

Third-class condition with ean mē (negative). Jesus picks up the challenge of Peter whose act amounted to irreverence and want of confidence. "The first condition of discipleship is self-surrender"(Westcott). So "Jesus, waiting with the basin"(Dods), concludes.

Robertson: Joh 13:8

Thou hast no part with me ( ouk echeis meros met' emou ).

Not simply here at the supper with its fellowship, but in the deeper sense of mystic fellowship as Peter was quick to see. Jesus does not make foot-washing essential to spiritual fellowship, but simply tests Peter’ s real pride and mock-humility by this symbol of fellowship.

Robertson: Joh 13:9

Not my feet only, but also my hands and my head ( mē tous podas mou monon alla kai tas cheiras kai tēn kephalēn ).

Nouns in the accusative case object of nipson understood. Peter’ s characteristic impulsiveness that does not really understand the Master’ s act. "A moment ago he told his Master He was doing too much: now he tells Him He is doing too little"(Dods).

Robertson: Joh 13:10

He that is bathed ( ho leloumenos ).

Perfect passive articular participle of louō , to bathe the whole body (Act 9:37).

Robertson: Joh 13:10

Save to wash his feet ( ei mē tous podas nipsasthai ).

Aleph and some old Latin MSS. have only nipsasthai , but the other words are genuine and are really involved by the use of nipsasthai (first aorist middle infinitive of niptō , to wash parts of the body) instead of lousasthai , to bathe the whole body (just used before). The guest was supposed to bathe (louō ) before coming to a feast and so only the feet had to be washed (niptō ) on removing the sandals.

Robertson: Joh 13:10

Clean ( katharos ).

Because of the bath. For katharos meaning external cleanliness see Mat 23:26; Mat 27:59; but in Joh 15:3 it is used for spiritual purity as here in "ye are clean"(katharoi ).

Robertson: Joh 13:10

Every whit ( holos ).

All of the body because of the bath. For this same predicate use of holos see Joh 9:34.

Robertson: Joh 13:10

But not all ( all' ouchi pantes ).

Strongly put exception (ouchi ). Plain hint of the treachery of Judas who is reclining at the table after having made the bargain with the Sanhedrin (Mar 14:11). A year ago Jesus knew that Judas was a devil and said to the apostles: "One of you is a devil"(Joh 6:64, Joh 6:70). But it did not hurt them then nor did they suspect each other then or now. It is far-fetched to make Jesus here refer to the cleansing power of his blood or to baptism as some do.

Robertson: Joh 13:11

For he knew him that should betray him ( ēidei gar ton paradidonta auton ).

Past perfect ēidei used as imperfect. Jesus had known for a year at least (Joh 6:64, Joh 6:70) and yet he treated Judas with his usual courtesy. The articular present participle of paradidōmi , "the betraying one,"for Judas was already engaged in the process. Did Judas wince at this thrust from Jesus?

Robertson: Joh 13:12

Sat down again ( anepesen palin ).

Second aorist active indicative of anapiptō , old compound verb to fall back, to lie down, to recline. Palin (again) can be taken either with anepesen , as here, or with eipen (he said again).

Robertson: Joh 13:12

Know ye what I have done to you? ( ginōskete ti pepoiēka humin ).

"Do ye understand the meaning of my act?"Perfect active indicative of poieō with dative case (humin ). It was a searching question, particularly to Simon Peter and Judas.

Robertson: Joh 13:13

Ye ( humeis ).

Emphatic.

Robertson: Joh 13:13

Call me ( phōneite me ).

"Address me."Phōneō regular for addressing one with his title (Joh 1:48).

Robertson: Joh 13:13

Master ( Ho didaskalos ).

Nominative form (not in apposition with me accusative after phōneite ), but really vocative in address with the article (called titular nominative sometimes) like Ho Kurios kai ho theos mou in Joh 20:28. "Teacher."See Joh 11:28 for Martha’ s title for Jesus to Mary.

Robertson: Joh 13:13

Lord ( Ho Kurios ).

Another and separate title. In Joh 1:38 we have Didaskale (vocative form) for the Jewish Rabbei and in Joh 9:36, Joh 9:38 Kurie for the Jewish Mari . It is significant that Jesus approves (kalōs , well) the application of both titles to himself as he accepts from Thomas the terms kurios and theos .

Robertson: Joh 13:13

For I am ( eimi gar ).

Jesus distinctly claims here to be both Teacher and Lord in the full sense, at the very moment when he has rendered this menial, but symbolic, service to them. Here is a hint for those who talk lightly about "the peril of worshipping Jesus!"

Robertson: Joh 13:14

If I then ( ei oun egō ).

Argumentative sense of oun (therefore). Condition of first class, assumed to be true, with first aorist active indicative of niptō , "If I, being what I am, washed your feet"(as I did).

Robertson: Joh 13:14

Ye also ought ( kai humeis opheilete ).

The obligation rests on you a fortiori . Present active indicative of the old verb opheilō , to owe a debt (Mat 18:30). The mutual obligation is to do this or any other needed service. The widows who washed the saints’ feet in 1Ti 5:10 did it "as an incident of their hospitable ministrations"(Bernard). Up to 1731 the Lord High Almoner in England washed the feet of poor saints ( pedilavium ) on Thursday before Easter, a custom that arose in the fourth century, and one still practised by the Pope of Rome.

Robertson: Joh 13:15

An example ( hupodeigma ).

For the old paradeigma (not in N.T.), from hupodeiknumi , to show under the eyes as an illustration or warning (Mat 3:7), common in the papyri for illustration, example, warning, here only in John, but in Jam 5:10; 2Pe 2:6; Heb 4:11; Heb 8:5; Heb 9:26. Peter uses tupoi (1Pe 5:3) with this incident in mind. In Jud 1:7 deigma (without hupo ) occurs in the sense of example.

Robertson: Joh 13:15

That ye also should do ( hina kai humeis poiēte ).

Purpose clause with hina and the present active subjunctive of poieō (keep on doing). Doing what? Does Jesus here institute a new church ordinance as some good people today hold? If so, it is curious that there is no record of it in the N.T. Jesus has given the disciples an object lesson in humility to rebuke their jealousy, pride, and strife exhibited at this very meal. The lesson of the "example"applies to all the relations of believers with each other. It is one that is continually needed.

Robertson: Joh 13:16

Is not greater ( ouk estin meizōn ).

Comparative adjective of megas (greater) followed by the ablative case kuriou (contrast between slave, lord) and tou pempsantos [articular participle of pempō , to send, with contrast with apostle, "one sent"(apostolos ) from apostellō ]. Jesus here enforces the dignity of service. In Luk 22:27 Jesus argues this point a bit. In Luk 6:40 the contrast is between the pupil and the teacher, though some pupils consider themselves superior to the teacher. In Mat 10:24 Jesus uses both forms of the saying (pupil and slave). He clearly repeated this logion often.

Robertson: Joh 13:17

If ye know ( ei oidate ).

Condition of first class assumed as true, ei and present (oidate used as present) active indicative.

Robertson: Joh 13:17

If ye do ( ean poiēte ).

Third-class condition, ean and present active subjunctive, assumed as possible, "if ye keep on doing."Both conditions with the one conclusion coming in between, "happy are ye."Just knowing does not bring happiness nor just occasional doing.

Robertson: Joh 13:18

Not of you all ( ou peri pantōn ).

As in Joh 13:11, he here refers to Judas whose treachery is no surprise to Jesus (Joh 6:64, Joh 6:70).

Robertson: Joh 13:18

Whom I have chosen ( tinas exelexamēn ).

Indirect question, unless tinas is here used as a relative like hous . The first aorist middle indicative of eklegō is the same form used in Joh 6:70. Jesus refers to the choice (Luk 6:13 eklexamenos , this very word again) of the twelve from among the large group of disciples.

Robertson: Joh 13:18

That the scripture might be fulfilled ( all' hina hē graphē plērōthēi ).

See the same clause in Joh 17:12. Purpose clause with hina and first aorist passive subjunctive of plēroō . This treachery of Judas was according to the eternal counsels of God (Joh 12:4), but none the less Judas is responsible for his guilt. For a like elliptical clause see Joh 9:3; Joh 15:25. The quotation is from the Hebrew of Psa 41:9.

Robertson: Joh 13:18

He that eateth ( ho trōgōn ).

Present active participle of old verb to gnaw, to chew, to eat, in N.T. only in John (Joh 6:54, Joh 6:56, Joh 6:57, Joh 6:58; Joh 13:18) and Mat 26:38. lxx has here ho esthiōn .

Robertson: Joh 13:18

Lifted up his heel against me ( epēren ep' eme tēn pternan autou ).

First aorist active indicative of epairō . Pterna , old word for heel, only here in N.T. The metaphor is that of kicking with the heel or tripping with the heel like a wrestler. It was a gross breach of hospitality to eat bread with any one and then turn against him so. The Arabs hold to it yet.

Robertson: Joh 13:19

From henceforth ( ap' arti ).

"From now on,"as in Joh 14:7; Mat 23:39; Rev 14:13.

Robertson: Joh 13:19

Before it come to pass ( pro tou genesthai ).

Pro with ablative of the articular second aorist middle infinitive ginomai (before the coming to pass).

Robertson: Joh 13:19

When it is come to pass ( hotan genētai ).

Indefinite relative clause with hotan and the second aorist middle subjunctive of ginomai , "whenever it does come to pass."

Robertson: Joh 13:19

That ye may believe ( hina pisteuēte ).

Purpose clause with hina and present active subjunctive of pisteuō , "that ye may keep on believing."Cf. Isa 48:5.

Robertson: Joh 13:19

That I am he ( hoti egō eimi ).

As Jesus has repeatedly claimed to be the Messiah (Joh 8:24, Joh 8:58, etc.). Cf. also Joh 14:29 (pisteusēte here); Joh 16:4.

Robertson: Joh 13:20

Whomsoever I send ( an tina pempsō ).

More precisely, "If I send any one"(third-class condition, an = ean and tina , indefinite pronoun accusative case, object of pempsō , first aorist active subjunctive of pempō , to send). This use of ei tis or ean tis (if any one) is very much like the indefinite relative hostis and hos an (or ean ), but the idiom is different. In Mar 8:34. we have both ei tis thelei and hos ean while in Joh 14:13. we find hoti an and ean ti (Robertson, Grammar , p. 956).

Robertson: Joh 13:21

He was troubled in the spirit ( etarachthē toi pneumati ).

First aorist passive indicative of tarassō and the locative case of pneuma . See note on Joh 11:33 and note on Joh 12:27 for this use of tarassō for the agitation of Christ’ s spirit. In Joh 14:1, Joh 14:27 it is used of the disciples. Jesus was one with God (Joh 5:19) and yet he had our real humanity (Joh 1:14).

Robertson: Joh 13:21

Testified ( emarturēsen ).

First aorist active indicative of martureō , definite witness as in Joh 4:44; Joh 18:37.

Robertson: Joh 13:21

One of you shall betray me ( heis ex humōn paradōsei me ).

Future active of paradidōmi , to betray, the word so often used of Judas. This very language occurs in Mar 14:18; Mat 26:21 and the idea in Luk 22:21. Jesus had said a year ago that "one of you is a devil"(Joh 6:70), but it made no such stir then. Now it was a bolt from the blue sky as Jesus swept his eyes around and looked at the disciples.

Robertson: Joh 13:22

Looked one on another ( eblepon eis allēlous ).

Inchoative imperfect of blepō , "began to glance at one another in bewilderment"(doubting, aporoumenoi , present passive participle of aporeō , to be at a loss, to lose one’ s way, a privative and poros , way). They recalled their strife about precedence and Judas betrayed nothing.

Robertson: Joh 13:22

Concerning whom he spake ( peri tinos legei ).

Indirect question retaining present active indicative legei . See same on Mar 14:19; note on Mat 26:22; and note on Luk 22:23.

Robertson: Joh 13:23

Was at the table reclining in Jesus’ bosom ( ēn anakeimenos en tōi kolpōi tou Iēsou ).

No word for "table"in the text. Periphrastic imperfect of anakeimai , to lie back, to recline. Kolpos usual word for bosom (Joh 1:18).

Robertson: Joh 13:23

Whom Jesus loved ( hon ēgapa Iēsous ).

Imperfect active of agapaō , John’ s description of himself of which he was proud (Joh 19:26; Joh 20:2; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:20), identified in Joh 21:24 as the author of the book and necessarily one of the twelve because of the "explicit"(Bernard) language of Mark (Mar 14:17; Luk 22:14). John son of Zebedee and brother of James. At the table John was on the right of Jesus lying obliquely so that his head lay on the bosom of Jesus. The centre, the place of honour, Jesus occupied. The next place in rank was to the left of Jesus, held by Peter (Westcott) or by Judas (Bernard) which one doubts.

Robertson: Joh 13:24

Beckoneth ( neuei ).

Old verb to nod, in N.T. only here and Act 24:10. They were all looking in surprise at each other.

Robertson: Joh 13:24

Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh ( eipe tis estin peri hou legei ).

Second aorist active imperative with indirect question (tis ) and relative clause (peri hou ). Peter was cautious, but could not contain his curiosity. John in front of Jesus was in a favourable position to have a whispered word with him.

Robertson: Joh 13:24

Breast ( stēthos ).

As in Joh 21:20; Luk 18:13 in place of kolpon (Joh 13:23). This is the moment represented in Leonardo da Vinci’ s "Last Supper,"only he shows the figures like the monks for whom he painted it.

Robertson: Joh 13:25

He ( ekeinos ).

"That one"(John).

Robertson: Joh 13:25

Leaning back ( anapesōn ).

Second aorist active participle of anapiptō , to fall back.

Robertson: Joh 13:25

As he was ( houtōs ).

"Thus."It was easily done.

Robertson: Joh 13:26

He ( ekeinos ).

Emphatic pronoun again.

Robertson: Joh 13:26

For whom I shall dip the sop ( hōi egō bapsō to psōmion ).

Dative case of the relative (hōi ) and future active of baptō , to dip (Luk 16:24). Psōmion is a diminutive of psōmos , a morsel, a common Koiné word (in the papyri often), in N.T. only in this passage. It was and is in the orient a token of intimacy to allow a guest to dip his bread in the common dish (cf. Rth 2:14). So Mar 14:20. Even Judas had asked: "Is it I?"(Mar 14:19; Mat 26:22).

Robertson: Joh 13:26

Giveth it to Judas ( didōsin Ioudāi ).

Unobserved by the others in spite of Christ’ s express language, because "it was so usual a courtesy"(Bernard), "the last appeal to Judas’ better feeling"(Dods). Judas now knew that Jesus knew his plot.

Robertson: Joh 13:27

Then entered Satan into him ( tote eisēlthen eis ekeinon ho Satanas ).

The only time the word Satan occurs in the Gospel. As he had done before (Joh 13:2; Luk 22:3) until Christ considered him a devil (Joh 6:70). This is the natural outcome of one who plays with the devil.

Robertson: Joh 13:27

That thou doest, do quickly ( Ho poieis poiēson tacheion ).

Aorist active imperative of poieō . "Do more quickly what thou art doing."Tacheion is comparative of tacheōs (Joh 11:31) and in N.T. only here, Joh 20:4; Heb 13:19, Heb 13:23. See the eagerness of Jesus for the passion in Luk 12:50.

Robertson: Joh 13:28

No one knew ( oudeis egnō ).

Second aorist active indicative of ginōskō . The disciples had not yet perceived the treacherous heart of Judas.

Vincent: Joh 13:1

Before the Feast of the Passover

This clause is to be construed with ἠγάπησεν , loved , at the close of this verse. Notice that John, in mentioning the Passover, here drops the explanatory phrase of the Jews (Joh 11:55). It is not the Passover of the Jews which Jesus is about to celebrate, which had degenerated into an empty form, but the national ordinance, according to its true spirit, and with a development of its higher meaning.

Vincent: Joh 13:1

Knowing ( εἰδὼς )

Or, since he knew .

Vincent: Joh 13:1

His hour

See on Joh 12:23, and compare Joh 2:4.

Vincent: Joh 13:1

That ( ἵνα )

In order that; marking the departure as a divine decree.

Vincent: Joh 13:1

Depart ( μεταβῇ )

The compounded preposition μετά , signifies passing over from one sphere into another.

Vincent: Joh 13:1

His own ( τοὺς ἰδίους )

See on Act 1:7. Compare Joh 17:6 sqq.; Act 4:23; Act 24:23; 1Ti 5:8; Joh 1:11.

Vincent: Joh 13:1

He loved ( ἠγάπησεν )

Notice that John uses the word indicating the discriminating affection: the love of choice and selection . See on Joh 5:20.

Vincent: Joh 13:1

Unto the end ( εἰς τέλος )

Interpretations differ. The rendering of the A.V. and Rev. is of doubtful authority. The passages cited in support of this, Mat 10:22; Mat 24:13; Mar 13:13, may all be rendered to the uttermost . Morever, other formulas are used where the meaning to the end is unquestionable. In Rev 2:26, the only other instance in John's writings where τέλος is used in an adverbial phrase the expression is ἄχρι τέλους , unto the end . Similarly Heb 6:11. In Heb 3:6, Heb 3:14, μέχρι τὲλους , unto the end . The phrase may mean at last , and so is rendered by many here, as Meyer, Lange, Thayer (Lex.). " At last He loved them;" that is, showed them the last proof of His love . This is the most probable rendering in Luk 18:5, on which see note. It may also mean to the uttermost , completely . So Westcott and Godet. But I am inclined, with Meyer, to shrink from the " inappropriate gradation" which is thus implied, as though Jesus' love now reached a higher degree than before (ἀγαπήσας ). Hence I prefer the rendering at last , or finally He loved them , taking ἠγάπησεν , loved, in the sense of the manifestation of His love. This sense frequently attaches to the verb. See, for instance, 1Jo 4:10 (" love viewed in its historic manifestation" Westcott), and compare Joh 3:16; Eph 2:4; Eph 5:2, Eph 5:25; 2Th 2:16; Rev 3:9.

Vincent: Joh 13:2

Supper being ended ( δείπνου γενομένου )

The most approved reading is γινομένου , the present participle, denoting while a supper was in progress . Hence Rev., rightly, during supper . The A.V. is wrong, even if the reading of the Received Text be retained; for in Joh 13:12 Jesus reclined again, and in Joh 13:26, the supper is still in progress. It should be, supper having begun , or having been served . It is important to note the absence of the definite article: a supper, as distinguished from the feast, which also is designated by a different word.

Vincent: Joh 13:2

Having now put ( ἤδη βεβληκότος )

Rev., better, already . Put , is literally, thrown or cast .

Vincent: Joh 13:2

Into the heart of Judas

Meyer, strangely, refers the heart, not to Judas, but to the Devil himself; rendering, the Devil having already formed the design that Judas should deliver Him up . Godet does not speak too strongly when he says that " this meaning is insufferable."

Vincent: Joh 13:3

Had given ( δέδωκεν )

The best texts read ἔδωκεν , gave , the aorist marking Jesus' commission as given once for all.

Vincent: Joh 13:3

Was come ( ἐξῆλθε )

This rendering would require the perfect tense. The aorist points to His coming as a historic fact, not as related to its result. See on Joh 12:47. Rev., rightly, came forth .

Vincent: Joh 13:3

Went ( ὑπάγει )

Present tense: goeth; withdrawing from the scenes of earth. Note the original order: that it was from God He came forth , and unto God He is going .

Vincent: Joh 13:4

From the supper ( ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου )

Out of the group gathered at the table.

Vincent: Joh 13:4

Laid aside ( τίθησι )

Present tense: layeth aside .

Vincent: Joh 13:4

Garments ( ἱμάτια )

See on Mat 5:40. Upper garments.

Vincent: Joh 13:4

Towel ( λέντιον )

A Latin word, linteum . A linen cloth . Only here and Joh 13:5.

Vincent: Joh 13:4

Girded ( διέζωσεν )

Only in this chapter and Joh 21:7. The compound verb means to bind or gird all round .

Vincent: Joh 13:5

A bason ( νιπτῆρα )

Only here in the New Testament. From νίπτω , to wash .

Vincent: Joh 13:6

Dost thou wash (σύ μου νίπτεις )? The two pronouns Thou , my , stand together at the beginning of the sentence in emphatic contrast. Dost thou of me wash the feet?

Vincent: Joh 13:7

Knowest - shalt know ( οἷδας - γνώσῃ )

The A.V. ignores the distinction between the two words. " Thou knowest not" (οὐκ οἶδας ), of absolute and complete knowledge . Thou shalt learn or perceive (γνώσῃ ), of knowledge gained by experience. See on Joh 2:24.

Vincent: Joh 13:7

Hereafter ( μετὰ ταῦτα )

Literally, after these things .

Vincent: Joh 13:8

Never ( οὐ μὴ - εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα )

A very strong expression. Literally, thou shalt by no means wash my feet as long as the world stands .

Vincent: Joh 13:10

He that is washed - wash his feet ( ὁ λελουμένος - νίψασθαι ).

The A.V. obliterates the distinction between λούω , to bathe , to apply water to the whole body, and νίπτω , to wash a part of the body. Thus, when Dorcas died (Act 9:37) they bathed her body (λούσαντες ). The proverb in 2Pe 2:22, is about the sow that has been bathed all over (λουσαμένη ). On the other hand, he who fasts must wash (νὶψαι ) his face (Mat 6:17). Both verbs are always used of living beings in the New Testament. The word for washing things , as nets, garments, etc., is πλύνω . See Luk 5:2. All three verbs occur in Lev 15:11 (Sept.).

Vincent: Joh 13:11

Who should betray ( τὸν παραδιδόντα )

Literally, him that is betraying . So in Mat 26:2, the present tense is used, is being betrayed

Vincent: Joh 13:11

( παραδίδοται )

See on Mat 4:12, and compare προδότης , betrayer , Luk 6:16; Act 7:52; 2Ti 3:4.

Vincent: Joh 13:12

Was set down ( ἀναπεσὼν )

Literally, having reclined . The guests reclined on couches, lying on the left side and leaning on the left hand. The table was in the hollow square or oblong formed on three sides by the couches, the fourth side being open, and the table extending beyond the ends of the couches.

Vincent: Joh 13:12

Know ye ( γινώσκετε )?

Perceive or understand ye?

Vincent: Joh 13:13

Master ( ὁ διδάσκαλος )

Literally, the Teacher . Teacher and Lord were used, according to the Jewish titles Rabbi and Mar , corresponding to which the followers were disciples or servants .

Vincent: Joh 13:14

Your

Inserted in A.V. Better, the Lord and the Master as Rev. Both have the article.

Vincent: Joh 13:14

Ought ( ὀφείλετε )

The verb means to owe . It occurs several times in John's Epistles (1Jo 2:6; 1Jo 3:16; 1Jo 4:11; 3Jo 1:8). In the Gospel only here and Joh 19:7. Compare Luk 17:10. In Matthew's version of the Lord's prayer occur the two kindred words ὀφείλνμα , debt , and ὀφειλέτης , debtor . Jesus here puts the obligation to ministry as a debt under which His disciples are laid by His ministry to them. The word ought is the past tense of owe . Δεῖ , ought or must (see Joh 3:7, Joh 3:14, Joh 3:30, etc.) expresses an obligation in the nature of things; ὀφείλειν , a special , personal obligation.

Vincent: Joh 13:15

Example ( ὑπόδειγμα )

On the three words used in the New Testament for example , ὑπόδειγμα , τύπος , and δεῖγμα , see on 2Pe 2:6; see on 1Pe 5:3; see on Jud 1:7.

Vincent: Joh 13:16

Verily, verily

See on Joh 1:51; see on Joh 10:1.

Vincent: Joh 13:16

The servant

No article. Better a servant, as Rev., a bond-servant .

Vincent: Joh 13:16

He that is sent ( ἀπόστολος )

Literally, an apostle . See on Mat 10:2.

Vincent: Joh 13:17

Happy ( μακάριοι )

Better, as Rev., blessed . See on Mat 5:3.

Vincent: Joh 13:18

I have chosen ( ἐξελεξάμην )

Aorist tense, I chose . Not elected to salvation , but chose as an apostle .

Vincent: Joh 13:18

That the scripture, etc. ( ἵνα )

Elliptical. We must supply this choice was made in order that, etc.

Vincent: Joh 13:18

Eateth ( τρώγων )

With the exception of Mat 24:38, the word occurs only in John. See on Joh 6:54. Originally it means to gnaw or crunch; to chew raw vegetables or fruits , and hence often used of animals feeding, as Homer (" Odyssey," vi., 90), of mules feeding. Of course it has lost its original sense in the New Testament, as it did to some extent in classical Greek, though, as applied to men, it more commonly referred to eating vegetables or fruit, as Aristophanes (" Peace," 1325) τρώγειν , to eat figs . The entire divorce in the New Testament from its primitive sense is shown in its application to the flesh of Christ (Joh 6:54). It is used by John only in connection with Christ.

Vincent: Joh 13:18

Bread with me ( μετ ' ἐμοῦ τὸν ἄρτον )

Some editors read, μοῦ τὸν ἄρτον , my bread .

Vincent: Joh 13:18

Heel ( πτέρναν )

Only here in the New Testament. The metaphor is of one administering a kick. Thus Plutarch, describing the robber Sciron, who was accustomed " out of insolence and wantonness to stretch forth his feet to strangers, commanding them to wash them, and then, when they did it, with a kick to send them down the rock into the sea" (" Theseus" ). Some have explained the metaphor by the tripping up of one's feet in wrestling; but, as Meyer justly says, " Jesus was not overreached ." The quotation is from the Hebrew, not the Septuagint of Psa 41:9 (Sept. 40). The Septuagint reads, " For the man of my peace in whom I hoped, who eateth my bread, magnified his cunning (πτερνισμόν , literally, tripping up ) against me."

Vincent: Joh 13:19

Now ( ἀπ ' ἄρτι )

Rev., correctly, from henceforth . Compare Joh 1:51; Joh 14:7; Mat 23:39.

Vincent: Joh 13:19

I am he ( ἐγώ εἰμι )

Or, I am . See on Joh 8:24.

Vincent: Joh 13:21

Was troubled in Spirit

See on Joh 11:33; see on Joh 12:27. The agitation was in the highest region of the spiritual life (πνεῦμα ).

Vincent: Joh 13:21

One of you shall betray me

So Matthew and Mark, with the addition of, who eateth with me . Luke, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table .

Vincent: Joh 13:22

Looked ( ἔβλεπον )

The imperfect tense, kept looking as they doubted .

Vincent: Joh 13:22

Doubting ( ἀπορούμενοι )

See on Mar 6:20.

Vincent: Joh 13:22

He spake ( λέγει )

The present tense, speaketh , introduced with lively effect.

Vincent: Joh 13:23

Was leaning on Jesus' bosom ( ἦν ἀνακείμενος ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἱησοῦ )

The Rev. renders, " there was at the table reclining," etc. At the table is added because the verb is the general term equivalent to sitting at table . " In Jesus' bosom," defines John's position relatively to the other guests. As the guests reclined upon the left arm, the feet being stretched out behind, the head of each would be near the breast of his companion on the left. Supposing that Jesus, Peter, and John were together, Jesus would occupy the central place, the place of honor, and John, being in front of Him, could readily lean back and speak to Him. Peter would be behind him.

Vincent: Joh 13:23

Bosom

See on Luk 6:38. The Synoptists do not give this incident.

Vincent: Joh 13:24

Beckoneth ( νεύει )

Literally, noddeth .

Vincent: Joh 13:24

That he should ask who it should be ( πυθέσθαι τίς ἄν εἴη )

The best texts read, καὶ λέγει αὐτῳ εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν , and saith unto him , Tell us who it is .

Vincent: Joh 13:25

Lying ( ἐπιπεσὼν )

This word is, literally, to fall upon , and is so rendered in almost every instance in the New Testament. In Mar 3:10, it is applied to the multitudes pressing upon Christ. It occurs, however, nowhere else in John, and therefore some of the best authorities read ἀναπεσὼν , leaning back , a verb which John uses several times in the Gospel, as in Joh 13:12. So Rev. Whichever of the two is read, it points out the distinction, which the A.V. misses by the translation lying , between ἦν ἀνακείμενος (Joh 13:23), which describes the reclining position of John throughout the meal, and the sudden change of posture pictured by ἀναπεσὼν , leaning back . The distinction is enforced by the different preposition in each case: reclining in (ἐν ) Jesus' bosom, and leaning back (ἀνά ). Again, the words bosom and breast represent different words in the Greek; κόλπος representing more generally the bend formed by the front part of the reclining person, the lap , and στῆθος the breast proper. The verb ἀναπίπτω , to lean back , always in the New Testament describes a change of position. It is used of a rower bending back for a fresh stroke. Plato, in the well-known passage of the " Phaedrus," in which the soul is described under the figure of two horses and a charioteer, says that when the charioteer beholds the vision of love he is afraid, and falls backward (ἀνέπεσεν ), so that he brings the steeds upon their haunches.

Vincent: Joh 13:25

As he was ( οὕτως )

Inserted by the best texts, and not found in the A.V. Reclining as he was , he leaned back . The general attitude of reclining was maintained. Compare Joh 4:6 : " sat thus (οὕτως ) on the well." According to the original institution, the Passover was to be eaten standing (Exo 12:11). After the Captivity the custom was changed, and the guests reclined. The Rabbis insisted that at least a part of the Paschal meal should be eaten in that position, because it was the manner of slaves to eat standing, and the recumbent position showed that they had been delivered from bondage into freedom.

Vincent: Joh 13:25

Breast ( στῆθος )

From ἵστημι , to cause to stand . Hence, that which stands out . In later writings John was known as ὁ ἐπιστήθιος , the one on the breast , or the bosom friend .

Vincent: Joh 13:26

To whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it ( ᾦ ἐγὼ βάψας τὸ ψωμίον ἐπιδώσω )

The best texts read ᾦ ἐγὼ βάψω τὸ ψωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ , for whom I shall dip the sop and give it him .

Vincent: Joh 13:26

Sop ( ψωμίον )

Only in this chapter. Diminutive from ψωμός , a morsel , which, in turn, is from ψάω , to rub , or to crumble . Homer, of the Cyclops:

" Then from his mouth came bits (ψωμοί ) of human flesh

Mingled with wine."

" Odyssey ," ix ., 374 .

And Xenophon: " And on one occasion having seen one of his companions at table tasting many dishes with one bit (ψωμῷ ) of bread" (" Memorabilia," iii., 14, 15). The kindred verb ψωμίζω , rendered feed , occurs Rom 12:20; 1Co 13:3. See also Septuagint, Psa 79:5; Psa 80:16. According to its etymology, the verb means to feed with morsels; and it was used by the Greeks of a nurse chewing the food and administering it to an infant. So Aristophanes: " And one laid the child to rest, and another bathed it, and another fed (ἐψώμισεν ) it" (" Lysistrate," 19, 20). This sense may possibly color the word as used in Rom 12:20 : " If thine enemy hunger, feed (ψώμιζε ) him;" with tender care . In 1Co 13:3, the original sense appears to be emphasized: " Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor (ψωμίσω )." This idea is that of doling away in morsels . Dean Stanley says: " Who that has witnessed the almsgiving in a Catholic monastery, or the court of a Spanish or Sicilian bishop's or archbishop's palace, where immense revenues are syringed away in farthings to herds of beggars, but must feel the force of the Apostle's half satirical ψωμίσω ?"

Vincent: Joh 13:26

Dipped the sop

Compare Mat 26:23; Mar 14:20. The regular sop of the Paschal supper consisted of the following things wrapped together: flesh of the Paschal lamb, a piece of unleavened bread, and bitter herbs. The sauce into which it was dipped does not belong to the original institution, but had been introduced before the days of Christ. According to one authority it consisted of only vinegar and water (compare Rth 2:14); others describe it as a mixture of vinegar, figs, dates, almonds, and spice. The flour which was used to thicken the sauce on ordinary occasions was forbidden at the Passover by the Rabbins, lest it might occasion a slight fermentation. According to some, the sauce was beaten up to the consistence of mortar, in order to commemorate the toils of the Israelites in laying bricks in Egypt.

Vincent: Joh 13:26

To Judas Iscariot the son of Simon ( Ἱούδᾳ Σίμωνος Ἱσκαριώτῃ ).

The best texts read Ἱσκαριώτου . " Judas the son of Simon Iscariot ." So Joh 6:71. The act was a mark of forbearance and goodwill toward the traitor, and a tacit appeal to his conscience against the contemplated treachery.

Vincent: Joh 13:27

Then ( τότε )

With a peculiar emphasis, marking the decisive point at which Judas was finally committed to his dark deed. The token of goodwill which Jesus had offered, if it did not soften his heart would harden it; and Judas appears to have so interpreted it as to confirm him in his purpose.

Vincent: Joh 13:27

Satan

The only occurrence of the word in this Gospel.

Vincent: Joh 13:27

Into him ( εἰς ἐκεῖνον )

The pronoun of remote reference sets Judas apart from the company of the disciples.

Vincent: Joh 13:27

Quickly ( τάχιον )

Literally, more quickly . The comparative implies a command to hasten his work, which was already begun.

Wesley: Joh 13:1

Namely, on Wednesday, in the paschal week.

Wesley: Joh 13:1

His apostles, he loved them to the end - Of his life.

Wesley: Joh 13:2

Probably now first.

Wesley: Joh 13:3

Though conscious of his own greatness, thus humbled himself.

Wesley: Joh 13:4

That part of them which would have hindered him.

Wesley: Joh 13:5

A large vessel was usually placed for this very purpose, wherever the Jews supped.

Wesley: Joh 13:7

We do not now know perfectly any of his works, either of creation, providence, or grace. It is enough that we can love and obey now, and that we shall know hereafter.

Wesley: Joh 13:8

If thou dost not submit to my will, thou hast no part with me - Thou art not my disciple. In a more general sense it may mean, If I do not wash thee in my blood, and purify thee by my Spirit, thou canst have no communion with me, nor any share in the blessings of my kingdom.

Wesley: Joh 13:9

How fain would man be wiser than God! Yet this was well meant, though ignorant earnestness.

Wesley: Joh 13:10

That is, to walk holy and undefiled.

Wesley: Joh 13:14

And why did they not? Why do we not read of any one apostle ever washing the feet of any other? Because they understood the Lord better. They knew he never designed that this should be literally taken. He designed to teach them the great lesson of humble love, as well as to confer inward purity upon them. And hereby he teaches us, In every possible way to assist each other in attaining that purity; To wash each other's feet, by performing all sorts of good offices to each other, even those of the lowest kind, when opportunity serves, and the necessity of any calls for them.

Wesley: Joh 13:16

Nor therefore ought to think much of either doing or suffering the same things.

Wesley: Joh 13:18

When I call you happy, I know one of you twelve whom I have chosen, will betray me; whereby that scripture will be fulfilled. Psa 41:9.

Wesley: Joh 13:20

And I put my own honour upon you, my ambassadors. Mat 10:40.

Wesley: Joh 13:21

The speaking thus indefinitely at first was profitable to them all.

Wesley: Joh 13:23

That is, sitting next to him at table. This phrase only expresses the then customary posture at meals, where the guests all leaned sidewise on couches. And each was said to lie in the bosom of him who was placed next above him.

Wesley: Joh 13:23

St. John avoids with great care the expressly naming himself. Perhaps our Lord now gave him the first proof of his peculiar love, by disclosing this secret to him.

Wesley: Joh 13:24

Behind Jesus, who lay between them.

Wesley: Joh 13:25

Leaning down, and so asking him privately.

Wesley: Joh 13:26

In his ear. So careful was he not to offend (if it had been possible) even Judas himself.

Wesley: Joh 13:26

Which he took up while he was speaking.

Wesley: Joh 13:26

And probably the other disciples thought Judas peculiarly happy! But when even this instance of our Lord's tenderness could not move him, then Satan took full possession.

Wesley: Joh 13:27

This is not a permission, much less a command. It is only as if he had said, If thou art determined to do it, why dost thou delay? Hereby showing Judas, that he could not be hid, and expressing his own readiness to suffer.

Wesley: Joh 13:28

Save John and Judas.

JFB: Joh 13:1

On these beautiful euphemisms, see on Luk 9:31; Luk 9:51.

JFB: Joh 13:1

The meaning is, that on the very edge of His last sufferings, when it might have been supposed that He would be absorbed in His own awful prospects, He was so far from forgetting "His own," who were to be left struggling "in the world" after He had "departed out of it to the Father" (Joh 17:11), that in His care for them He seemed scarce to think of Himself save in connection with them: "Herein is love," not only "enduring to the end," but most affectingly manifested when, judging by a human standard, least to be expected.

JFB: Joh 13:2

Rather, "being prepared," "being served," or, "going on"; for that it was not "ended" is plain from Joh 13:26.

JFB: Joh 13:2

Or, "already."

JFB: Joh 13:2

Referring to the agreement he had already made with the chief priests (Luk 22:3-6).

JFB: Joh 13:3

This verse is very sublime, and as a preface to what follows, were we not familiar with it, would fill us with inexpressible surprise. An unclouded perception of His relation to the Father, the commission He held from Him, and His approaching return to Him, possessed His soul.

JFB: Joh 13:4-5

Outer garments which would have impeded the operation of washing.

JFB: Joh 13:4-5

Assuming a servant's dress.

JFB: Joh 13:5

Proceeded to wash. Beyond all doubt the feet of Judas were washed, as of all the rest.

JFB: Joh 13:6-11

Our language cannot bring out the intensely vivid contrast between the "Thou" and the "my," which, by bringing them together, the original expresses, for it is not good English to say, "Lord, Thou my feet dost wash?" But every word of this question is emphatic. Thus far, and in the question itself, there was nothing but the most profound and beautiful astonishment at a condescension to him quite incomprehensible. Accordingly, though there can be no doubt that already Peter's heart rebelled against it as a thing not to be tolerated, Jesus ministers no rebuke as yet, but only bids him wait a little, and he should understand it all.

JFB: Joh 13:7

That is, Such condescension does need explanation; it is fitted to astonish.

JFB: Joh 13:7

Afterwards, meaning presently; though viewed as a general maxim, applicable to all dark sayings in God's Word, and dark doings in God's providence, these words are full of consolation.

JFB: Joh 13:8

More emphatically, "Never shalt Thou wash my feet": that is, "That is an incongruity to which I can never submit." How like the man!

JFB: Joh 13:8

What Peter could not submit to was, that the Master should serve His servant. But the whole saving work of Christ was one continued series of such services, ending with and consummated by the most self-sacrificing and transcendent of all services: THE SON OF MAN CAME not to be ministered unto, but TO MINISTER, AND TO GIVE HIS LIFE A RANSOM FOR MANY. (See on Mar 10:45). If Peter then could not submit to let his Master go down so low as to wash his feet, how should he suffer himself to be served by Him at all? This is couched under the one pregnant word "wash," which though applicable to the lower operation which Peter resisted, is the familiar scriptural symbol of that higher cleansing, which Peter little thought he was at the same time virtually putting from him. It is not humility to refuse what the Lord deigns to do for us, or to deny what He has done, but it is self-willed presumption--not rare, however, in those inner circles of lofty religious profession and traditional spirituality, which are found wherever Christian truth has enjoyed long and undisturbed possession. The truest humility is to receive reverentially, and thankfully to own, the gifts of grace.

JFB: Joh 13:9

That is, "To be severed from Thee, Lord, is death to me: If that be the meaning of my speech, I tread upon it; and if to be washed of Thee have such significance, then not my feet only, but hands, head, and all, be washed!" This artless expression of clinging, life-and-death attachment to Jesus, and felt dependence upon Him for his whole spiritual well-being, compared with the similar saying in Joh 6:68-69 (see on Joh 6:68-69), furnishes such evidence of historic verity such as no thoroughly honest mind can resist.

JFB: Joh 13:10

In this thorough sense, to express which the word is carefully changed to one meaning to wash as in a bath.

JFB: Joh 13:10

To be so washed any more.

JFB: Joh 13:10

Needeth to do no more than wash his feet (and here the former word is resumed, meaning to wash the hands or feet).

JFB: Joh 13:10

As a whole. This sentence is singularly instructive. Of the two cleansings, the one points to that which takes place at the commencement of the Christian life, embracing complete absolution from sin as a guilty state, and entire deliverance from it as a polluted life (Rev 1:5; 1Co 6:11) --or, in the language of theology, Justification and Regeneration. This cleansing is effected once for all, and is never repeated. The other cleansing, described as that of "the feet," is such as one walking from a bath quite cleansed still needs, in consequence of his contact with the earth. (Compare Exo 30:18-19). It is the daily cleansing which we are taught to seek, when in the spirit of adoption we say, "Our Father which art in heaven . . . forgive us our debts" (Mat 6:9, Mat 6:12); and, when burdened with the sense of manifold shortcomings--as what tender spirit of a Christian is not?--is it not a relief to be permitted thus to wash our feet after a day's contact with the earth? This is not to call in question the completeness of our past justification. Our Lord, while graciously insisting on washing Peter's feet, refuses to extend the cleansing farther, that the symbolical instruction intended to be conveyed might not be marred.

JFB: Joh 13:10

In the first and whole sense.

JFB: Joh 13:10

Important, as showing that Judas, instead of being as true-hearted a disciple as the rest at first, and merely falling away afterwards--as many represent it--never experienced that cleansing at all which made the others what they were.

JFB: Joh 13:12-15

That is, its intent. The question, however, was put merely to summon their attention to His own answer.

JFB: Joh 13:13

Teacher.

JFB: Joh 13:13

Learning of Him in the one capacity, obeying Him in the other.

JFB: Joh 13:13

The conscious dignity with which this claim is made is remarkable, following immediately on His laying aside the towel of service. Yet what is this whole history but a succession of such astonishing contrast from first to last?

JFB: Joh 13:14

The Lord.

JFB: Joh 13:14

The servants'.

JFB: Joh 13:14

But fellow servants.

JFB: Joh 13:14

Not in the narrow sense of a literal washing, profanely caricatured by popes and emperors, but by the very humblest real services one to another.

JFB: Joh 13:16-17

An oft-repeated saying (Mat 10:24, &c.).

JFB: Joh 13:16-17

A hint that even among real Christians the doing of such things would come lamentably short of the knowing.

JFB: Joh 13:18-19

The "happy are ye," of Joh 13:17, being on no supposition applicable to Judas.

JFB: Joh 13:18-19

In the higher sense.

JFB: Joh 13:18-19

That is, one has been added to your number, by no accident or mistake, who is none of Mine, but just that he might fulfil his predicted destiny.

JFB: Joh 13:18-19

"did eat of my bread" (Psa 41:9), as one of My family; admitted to the nearest familiarity of discipleship and of social life.

JFB: Joh 13:18-19

Turned upon Me, adding insult to injury. (Compare Heb 10:29). In the Psalm the immediate reference is to Ahithophel's treachery against David (2Sa. 17:1-23), one of those scenes in which the parallel of his story with that of His great Antitype is exceedingly striking. "The eating bread derives a fearful meaning from the participation in the sacramental supper, a meaning which must be applied for ever to all unworthy communicants, as well as to all betrayers of Christ who eat the bread of His Church" (STIER, with whom, and others, we agree in thinking that Judas partook of the Lord's Supper).

JFB: Joh 13:19

And it came to pass when they deeply needed such confirmation.

JFB: Joh 13:20

(See on Mat 10:40). The connection here seems to be that despite the dishonor done to Him by Judas, and similar treatment awaiting themselves, they were to be cheered by the assurance that their office, even as His own, was divine.

JFB: Joh 13:21

The announcement of Joh 13:18 seems not to have been plain enough to be quite apprehended, save by the traitor himself. He will therefore speak it out in terms not to be misunderstood. But how much it cost Him to do this, appears from the "trouble" that came over His "spirit"--visible emotion, no doubt--before He got it uttered. What wounded susceptibility does this disclose, and what exquisite delicacy in His social intercourse with the Twelve, to whom He cannot, without an effort, break the subject!

JFB: Joh 13:22

Further intensely interesting particulars are given in the other Gospels: (1) "They were exceeding sorrowful" (Mat 26:22). (2) "They began to inquire among themselves which of them it was that should do this thing" (Luk 22:23). (3) "They began to say unto Him one by one, Is it I, and another, Is it I?" (Mar 14:19). Generous, simple hearts! They abhorred the thought, but, instead of putting it on others, each was only anxious to purge himself and know if he could be the wretch. Their putting it at once to Jesus Himself, as knowing doubtless who was to do it, was the best, as it certainly was the most spontaneous and artless evidence of their innocence. (4) Jesus, apparently while this questioning was going on, added, "The Son of man goeth as it is written of Him, but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born" (Mat 26:24). (5) "Judas," last of all, "answered and said, Lord, is it I?" evidently feeling that when all were saying this, if he held his peace, that of itself would draw suspicion upon him. To prevent this the question is wrung out of him, but perhaps, amidst the stir and excitement at the table, in a half-suppressed tone as we are inclined to think the answer also was--"Thou hast said" (Mat 26:25), or possibly by little more than a sign; for from Joh 13:28 it is evident that till the moment when he went out, he was not openly discovered.

JFB: Joh 13:23-26

Thus modestly does our Evangelist denote himself, as reclining next to Jesus at the table.

JFB: Joh 13:23-26

Reclining probably at the corresponding place on the other side of Jesus.

JFB: Joh 13:25

Rather leaning over on Jesus' bosom.

JFB: Joh 13:25

In a whisper, "Lord, who is it?"

JFB: Joh 13:26

Also inaudibly, the answer being communicated to Peter perhaps from behind.

JFB: Joh 13:26

A piece of the bread soaked in the wine or the sauce of the dish; one of the ancient ways of testifying peculiar regard; compare Joh 13:18, "he that eateth bread with Me."

JFB: Joh 13:26

Thus the sign of Judas' treachery was an affecting expression, and the last, of the Saviour's wounded love!

JFB: Joh 13:27-30

Very solemn are these brief hints of the successive steps by which Judas reached the climax of his guilt. "The devil had already put it into his heart to betray his Lord." Yet who can tell what struggles he went through ere he brought himself to carry that suggestion into effect? Even after this, however, his compunctions were not at an end. With the thirty pieces of silver already in his possession, he seems still to have quailed--and can we wonder? When Jesus stooped to wash his feet, it may be the last struggle was reaching its crisis. But that word of the Psalm, about "one that ate of his bread who would lift up his heel against Him" (Psa 41:9) probably all but turned the dread scale, and the still more explicit announcement, that one of those sitting with Him at the table should betray Him, would beget the thought, "I am detected; it is now too late to draw back." At that moment the sop is given; offer of friendship is once more made--and how affectingly! But already "Satan has entered into him," and though the Saviour's act might seem enough to recall him even yet, hell is now in his bosom, and he says within himself, "The die is cast; now let me go through with it"; fear, begone!" (See on Mat 12:43).

JFB: Joh 13:27-30

That is, Why linger here? Thy presence is a restraint, and thy work stands still; thou hast the wages of iniquity, go work for it!

JFB: Joh 13:28-29

A very important statement, as showing how carefully. Jesus had kept the secret, and Judas his hypocrisy, to the last.

Clarke: Joh 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew, etc. - Or, as some translate, Now Jesus having known, before the feast of the passover, that his hour was come, etc. The supper mentioned in Joh 13:2 is supposed to have been that on the Thursday evening, when the feast of the passover began; and though, in our common translation, this passage seems to place the supper before that feast, yet, according to the amended translation, what is here said is consistent with what we read in the other evangelists. See Mat 26:2; Joh 12:1

Clarke: Joh 13:1

Having loved his own - His disciples

Clarke: Joh 13:1

Which were in the world - Who were to continue longer in its troubles and difficulties

Clarke: Joh 13:1

He loved them unto the end - Continued his fervent affection towards them to his latest breath, and gave them that convincing proof of it which is mentioned Joh 13:5. That the disciples alone are meant here every man must see.

Clarke: Joh 13:2

And supper being ended - Rather, δειπνου γενομενου, while supper was preparing. To support this new translation of the words, it may be remarked that, from Joh 13:26, Joh 13:30, it appears that the supper was not then ended: nay, it is probable that it was not then begun; because the washing of feet (Joh 13:5) was usually practised by the Jews before they entered upon their meals, as may be gathered from Luk 7:44, and from the reason of the custom. I think that John wrote, not γενομενου, but γινομενου, as in BL. Cant. and Origen, which latter reading is approved by several eminent critics, and should be translated as above. By the supper I suppose to be meant, not only the eating of it, but the preparing and dressing of it, and doing all things necessary previously to the eating of it. The devil had, before this time of the supper, put it into Judas’ s heart to betray his Master. See Mat 26:14, etc.; Mar 14:10, Mar 14:11; and Luk 22:3, etc. See also Bishop Pearce, from whose judicious commentary the preceding notes are principally taken

Calmet observes that John, designing only to supply what was omitted by the other evangelists, passes over all the transactions of the Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, before the passion, and at once goes from Monday evening to Thursday evening. It is remarkable that St. John says nothing about the institution of the holy sacrament, which Matthew, Mat 26:26, etc., Mark, Mar 14:22, etc., and Luke, Luk 22:19, etc., describe so particularly. No other reason can be assigned for this than that he found it completely done by the others, and that he only designed to supply their defects

Clarke: Joh 13:2

The devil having now put it into the heart - Judas formed his plot six days before this, on occasion of what happened at the house of Simon the leper: see Mat 26:14. Calmet.

Clarke: Joh 13:3

Knowing that the Father had given, etc. - Our Lord, seeing himself almost at the end of his race, and being about to leave his apostles, thought it necessary to leave them a lesson of humility exemplified by himself, to deliver them from the bad influence of those false ideas which they formed concerning the nature of his kingdom. On all occasions previously to this, the disciples had shown too much attachment to worldly honors and dignities: if this ambition had not been removed, the consequences of it would have been dreadful in the establishment of the religion of Christ; as after his death, it would have divided and infallibly dispersed them. It was necessary therefore to restrain this dangerous passion, and to confirm by a remarkable example what he had so often told them, - that true greatness consisted in the depth of humility, and that those who were the willing servants of all should be the highest in the account of God.

Clarke: Joh 13:4

He riseth from supper - Not from eating, as Bishop Pearce has well observed, but from his place at table; probably the dishes were not as yet laid down, though the guests were seated. According to the custom of the Jews and other Asiatics, this washing must have taken place before the supper. See on Joh 13:2 (note)

Clarke: Joh 13:4

Laid aside his garments - That is, his gown or upper coat, with the girdle wherewith it was girded close to his tunic or under coat; and, instead of this girdle, he tied a towel about him

1.    that he might appear in the character of a servant; an

2.    that he might have it in readiness to dry their feet after he had washed them.

Clarke: Joh 13:5

Poureth water into a bason, etc. - This was the office of the meanest slaves. When David sent to Abigail, to inform her that he had chosen her for wife, she arose and said: Behold, let thy handmaid be a Servant, to Wash the Feet of the Servants of my lord, 1Sa 25:41. Some of the ancients have supposed that our Lord began with washing the feet of Judas, to inspire him with sentiments of compunction and remorse, to melt him down with kindness, and to show all his disciples how they should act towards their enemies. Dr. Lightfoot supposes he washed the feet of Peter, James, and John only; but this is not likely: the verb αρχεσθαι in the sacred writings, signifies, not only to commence, but to finish an act, Act 1:1; and in the Septuagint, Gen 2:3. There is every reason to believe that he washed the feet of all the twelve. See on Joh 13:9 (note).

Clarke: Joh 13:6

Lord, dost Thou wash My feet? - Every word here is exceedingly emphatic. Peter had often seen the great humility of his Lord, but never saw his condescension so particularly marked as in this instance.

Clarke: Joh 13:7

What I do thou knowest not now, etc. - As if our Lord had said, Permit me to do it now, and I will shortly explain to you the nature of this action, and my motives for doing it

Clarke: Joh 13:7

Thou shalt know hereafter - Μετα ταυτα, after this business is finished. And so we find he explained the whole to them, as soon as he had finished the washing: see Joh 13:12-17. I cannot think that this refers to any particular instruction received on this head after the day of pentecost, as some have conjectured.

Clarke: Joh 13:8

If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me - Thou canst not be my disciple unless I wash thee. It is certain Christ did not mean to exclude him from the apostolic office, if he should persist, through the deepest reverence for his Master, to refuse to let him wash his feet: this act of his was emblematical of something spiritual; of something that concerned the salvation of Peter; and without which washing he could neither be an apostle or be finally saved; therefore our Lord said, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. There is a mystical washing by the blood of Christ, 1Jo 1:7; and by his Spirit, 1Co 6:11; Tit 3:5, Tit 3:6. It was the common custom of our Lord to pass from sensible and temporal things to those which were spiritual and eternal; and to take occasion from every thing that presented itself, to instruct his disciples, and to raise their souls to God. If the discourse was of bread, water, leaven, father, mother, riches, etc., he immediately changed the literal sense, and under the figure of these things, spoke of matters altogether spiritual and Divine. I have met with many good persons who have attempted to imitate our blessed Lord in this, but I never knew one to succeed in it. The reason is, it requires not only very deep piety, but sound sense, together with an accurate knowledge of the nature and properties of the subjects which, in this way, the person wishes to illustrate; and very few can be found who have such deep, philosophical knowledge as such cases require. The large folio which a good-intentioned man printed on the metaphors is, alas! a standing proof how little mere piety can do in matters of this kind, where the sciences, and especially practical philosophy, are totally wanting. Jesus Christ was a consummate philosopher: every subject appears grand and noble in his hands. See an ample proof in the preceding chapter, Joh 12:24 (note).

Clarke: Joh 13:9

Lord, not my feet only, etc. - It appears that Peter entered into our Lord’ s meaning, and saw that this was emblematical of a spiritual cleansing: therefore he wishes to be completely washed.

Clarke: Joh 13:10

He that is washed - That is, he who has been in the bath, as probably all the apostles had lately been, in order to prepare themselves the better for the paschal solemnity; for on that occasion, it was the custom of the Jews to bathe twice

Clarke: Joh 13:10

Needeth not save to wash his feet - To cleanse them from any dirt or dust that might have adhered to them, in consequence of walking from the bath to the place of supper. The washing, therefore, of the feet of such persons was all that was necessary, previously to their sitting down to table; The Hindoos walk home from bathing barefoot, and, on entering the house wash their feet again. To this custom our Lord evidently alludes

If these last words of our Lord had any spiritual reference, it is not easy to say what it was. A common opinion is the following: He who is washed - who is justified through the blood of the Lamb, needeth only to wash his feet - to regulate all his affections and desires; and to get, by faith, his conscience cleansed from any fresh guilt, which he may have contracted since his justification

Clarke: Joh 13:10

Ye are clean, but not all - Eleven of you are upright and sincere; the twelfth is a traitor. So it appears he had washed the feet of all the twelve; but as no external ablutions can purify a hypocrite or a traitor, therefore Judas still remained unclean.

Clarke: Joh 13:12

Know ye what I have done - Our Lord had told Peter, in the presence of the rest, Joh 13:7, that he should afterwards know what was the intent and meaning of this washing; and now he begins to fulfill his promise; therefore I think it more likely that he gives a command, here, than asks a question, as he knew himself that they did not comprehend his design. On this account γινωσκετε might be translated in the imperative mood, Consider what I have done.

Clarke: Joh 13:13

Ye call me Master and Lord - Ὁ διδασκαλος και ὁ κυριος, similar to רבי Rabbi , and מר Mar , titles very common among the Jewish doctors, as may be seen in Schoettgen. This double title was not given except to the most accredited teachers, רבי ומורי Rabbi vemore , my master, my lord!

Clarke: Joh 13:14

Ye also ought to wash one another feet - That is, ye should be ready, after my example, to condescend to all the weakness of your brethren; to be willing to do the meanest offices for them, and to prefer the least of them in honor to yourselves.

Clarke: Joh 13:16

The servant is not greater than his lord - Christ has ennobled the acts of humility by practising them himself. The true glory of a Christian consists in being, in his measure, as humble as his Lord

Clarke: Joh 13:16

Neither he that is sent - Ουδε αποϚολος Nor an apostle. As I think these words were intended for the suppression of all worldly ambition and lordly conduct in the apostles and their successors in the ministry, therefore I think the original word αποϚολος, should be translated apostle, rather than he that is sent, because the former rendering ascertains and determines the meaning better.

Clarke: Joh 13:17

If ye know these things, happy, etc. - True happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and in obedience to him. A man is not happy because he knows much; but because he receives much of the Divine nature, and is, in all his conduct, conformed to the Divine will. "They who have read many books (says Menu) are more exalted than such as have seldom studied; they who retain what they have read, than forgetful readers; they who fully understand, than such as only remember; and they who perform their known duty, than such as barely know it. Sacred knowledge and devotedness to God are the means by which a man can arrive at beatitude."See Institutes of Menu, c. xii. Inst. 103, 104. For a heathen this saying is very remarkable.

Clarke: Joh 13:18

I speak not of you all - This is a continuation of that discourse which was left off at the tenth verse. The preceding verses may be read in a parenthesis

Clarke: Joh 13:18

I know whom I have chosen - I am not deceived in my choice; I perfectly foresaw every thing that has happened, or can happen. I have chosen Judas, not as a wicked man, nor that he should become such; but I plainly foresaw that he would abuse my bounty, give way to iniquity, deliver me into the hands of my enemies, and bring ruin upon himself

Clarke: Joh 13:18

That the scripture may be fulfilled - Or, thus the scripture is fulfilled. Christ applies to Judas what David had said of his rebellious son Absalom, Psa 41:9, who was one of the most express emblems of this traitor. See on Joh 12:38, Joh 12:39 (note)

Clarke: Joh 13:18

He that eateth bread with me - That is, he who was in habits of the utmost intimacy with me

Clarke: Joh 13:18

Hath lifted up his heel - An allusion to a restive, ill-natured horse, that sometimes kicks even the person who feeds and takes care of him.

Clarke: Joh 13:19

That - ye may believe - These frequent predictions of his death, so circumstantial in themselves, had the most direct tendency to confirm the disciples, not only in the belief of his being the Messiah, but also in that of his omniscience.

Clarke: Joh 13:20

He that received whomsoever I send - See similar words, Mat 10:40, etc. Our Lord spoke this to comfort his disciples: he showed them that, although they should be rejected by many, they would be received by several; and that whoever received them should reap the utmost benefit by it.

Clarke: Joh 13:21

Was troubled in spirit - See the note on Joh 11:33

Clarke: Joh 13:21

And testified - Spoke with great earnestness

Clarke: Joh 13:21

Shall betray me - Παραδωσει με, Will deliver me up. Judas had already betrayed our blessed Lord, and he was now on the point of delivering him up into the hands of the chief priests. By all these warnings, did not our Lord intend that Judas should be benefited? - that he should repent of his iniquity, and turn and find mercy?

Clarke: Joh 13:22

Looked one on another doubting of whom he spake - See the notes on Mat 26:20-25 (note). Every one but Judas, conscious of his own innocence, looked about upon all the rest, wondering who in that company could be such a traitor! Even Judas himself is not suspected. Is not this a proof that his general conduct had been such as to subject him to no suspicion?

Clarke: Joh 13:23

Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom - The Jews of those days, at their suppers, reclined, supported by their left arm, on couches placed round the table, as the Greeks and Romans did. On each couch there were two or three persons; and the head of one of them came near to the bosom of him who reclined above him on the same couch. The person here mentioned was John, the writer of this history, who, being more tenderly loved by Christ than the rest, had always that place at table which was nearest to his Lord.

Clarke: Joh 13:25

He then lying on Jesus’ breast - Επιπεσων, laying his head against the breast of Christ, in a loving, respectful manner. As the expressions in the text are different here from those in the preceding verse, it shows that John altered his position at table, in order to ask the question which Peter suggested, which he probably did by whispering to our Lord; for, from Joh 13:28, we may learn that the other disciples had not heard what John said; and it is likely that the following words - It is he to whom I shall give the morsel when I have dipped it, were whispered back by Christ to John.

Clarke: Joh 13:26

And when he had dipped the sop - Dr. Lightfoot observes that it was no unusual thing to dip a sop and give it to any person; and it is probable that the rest of the disciples considered it as given to Judas that he might hurry to do some work on which he wished to employ him, and not wait to finish his supper in a regular manner. They did not hear the question that John asked, nor our Lord’ s answer; but they no doubt heard the words, That thou doest do quickly - and might understand them as above.

Clarke: Joh 13:27

Satan entered into him - He had entered into him before, and now he enters again, to strengthen him in his purpose of delivering up his Master. But the morsel was not the cause of this entering in; the giving of it only marks the time in which the devil confirmed Judas in his traitorous purpose. Some have thought that this morsel was the sacrament of the Lord’ s Supper: but this is an utter mistake

Clarke: Joh 13:27

That thou doest, do quickly - As if he had said: "Thou art past all counsel; thou hast filled up the measure of thy iniquity, and hast wholly abandoned thyself to Satan; I will not force thee to turn from thy purpose, and without this thou wilt not. Thy designs are all known to me; what thou art determined to do, and I to permit, do directly; delay not, I am ready."

Calvin: Joh 13:1

1.Before the feast of the passover John intentionally passes by many things which, he knew, had been related by Matthew and others. He undertakes to explain those circumstances which they had left out, one of which was the narrative of the washing of feet. And though he will afterwards explain more clearly for what purpose Christ washed the feet of his disciples, yet, before doing so, he states, in a single word, that the Lord testified, by this visible sign, that the love with which he embraced them was firm and lasting; that, though they were deprived of his presence, they might still be convinced that death itself would not quench this love. This conviction ought now to be fixed also in our hearts.

The words are, that Christ loved even to the end his own, who were in the world. Why does he employ this circumlocution in describing the Apostles, but in order to inform us that, in consequence of their being engaged, as we are, in a hazardous and difficult warfare, Christ regarded them with so much the greater solicitude? And, therefore, though we think that we are at a distance from Christ, yet we ought to know that he is looking at us; for he loveth his own, who are in the world; for we, have no reason to doubt that he still bears the same affection which he retained at the very moment of his death.

To remove from this world to the Father This phrase is worthy of notice; for it refers to the knowledge of Christ, that he knew that his death was a passage to the heavenly kingdom of God. And if, while he was hastening thither, he did not cease to regard his own with his wonted love, there is no reason why we should now think that his affection is changed. Now, since he is the first-born from the dead, this definition of death applies to the whole body of the Church, that it is an opening or passage to go to God, from whom believers are now absent. ³⁸

Calvin: Joh 13:2

2.After supper ³⁹ We shall afterwards take into consideration, at the proper place, the whole of Christ’s design in washing the feet of his disciples, and the advantage to be derived from this narrative. Let us now attend to the connection of the words. The Evangelist says that this was done, while Judas already resolved to betray Christ, not only to show the wonderful patience of Christ, who could endure to wash the feet of such a wicked and detestable traitor; but also that he purposely selected the time when he was near death, for performing what may be regarded as the last act of his life.

The devil having already put it into the heart of Judas When the Evangelist says that Judas had been impelled by the devil to form the design of betraying Christ, this tends to show the enormity of the crime; for it was dreadful and most atrocious wickedness, in which the efficacy of Satan was openly displayed. There is no wickedness, indeed, that is perpetrated by men, to which Satan does not excite them, but the more hideous and execrable any crime is, the more ought we to view in it the rage of the devil, who drives about, in all possible directions, ⁴⁰ men who have been forsaken by God. But though the lust of men is kindled into a fiercer flame by Satan’s fan, still it does not cease to be a furnace; it contains the flame kindled within itself, it receives with avidity the agitation of the fan, so that no excuse is left for wicked men.

Calvin: Joh 13:3

3.Jesus, knoweth that the Father had given all things into his hands I am of opinion that this was added for the purpose of informing us whence Christ obtained such a well-regulated composure of mind. It was because, having already obtained a victory over death, he raised his mind to the glorious triumph which was speedily to follow. It usually happens, that men seized with fear are greatly agitated. The Evangelist means, that no agitation of this sort was to be found in Christ, because, though he was to be immediately betrayed by Judas, still he knew that the Father had given all things into his hand. It may be asked, How then was he reduced to such a degree of sadness that he sweat blood? I reply, both were necessary. It was necessary that he should have a dread of death, and it was necessary that, notwithstanding of this, he should fearlessly discharge every thing that belonged to the office of the Mediator.

Calvin: Joh 13:4

4.And layeth aside his garments The meaning is, that he laid aside his upper garment, not his coat; for we know that the inhabitants of Eastern countries wore long garments

Calvin: Joh 13:5

5.And began to wash the feet of his disciples These words express the design of Christ, rather than the outward act; for the Evangelist adds, that he began with Peter.

Calvin: Joh 13:6

6.Lord, dost thou wash my feet? This speech expresses strong dislike of the action as foolish and unsuitable; for by asking what Christ is doing, he puts out his hand, as it were, to push him back. The modesty would be worthy of commendation, were it not that obedience is of greater value in the sight of God than any kind of honor or service, or rather, if this were not the true and only rule of humility, to yield ourselves in obedience to God, and to have all our senses regulated by his good pleasure, so that every thing which he declares to be agreeable to Him shall also be approved by us, without any scruple. We ought, therefore, above all, to observe this rule of serving God, that we shall be always ready to acquiesce, without delay, as soon as he issues any command.

Calvin: Joh 13:7

7.What I do We are taught by these words, that we ought simply to obey Christ, even though we should not perceive the reason why he wishes this or that thing to be done. In a well-regulated house, one person, the head of the family, has the sole fight to say what ought to be done; and the servants are bound to employ their hands and feet in his service. That man, therefore, is too haughty, who refuses to obey the command of God, because he does not know the reason of it. But this admonition has a still more extensive meaning, and that is, that we should not take it ill to be ignorant of those things which God wishes to be hidden from us for a time; for this kind of ignorance is more learned than any other kind of knowledge, when we permit God to be wise above us.

Calvin: Joh 13:8

8.Thou shalt never wash my feet Hitherto Peter’s modesty was excusable, though it was not free from blame; but now he errs more grievously, when he has been corrected, and yet does not yield. ⁴² And, indeed, it is a common fault, that ignorance is closely followed by obstinacy. It is a plausible excuse, no doubt, that the refusal springs from reverence for Christ; but since he does not absolutely obey the injunction, the very desire of showing his respect for Christ loses all its gracefulness. The true wisdom of faith, therefore, is to approve and embrace with reverence whatever proceeds from God, as done with propriety and in good order; nor is there any other way, indeed, in which his name can be sanctified by us; for if we do not believe that whatever he does is done for a very good reason: our flesh, being naturally stubborn, will continually murmur, and will not render to God the honor due to him, unless by constraint. In short, until a man renounce the liberty of judging as to the works of God, whatever exertions he may make to honor God, still pride will always lurk under the garb of humility.

If I wash thee not This reply of Christ does not yet explain the reason why he resolved to wash the feet of his disciples; only by a comparison drawn from the soul to the body, he shows that, in washing the feet of his disciples, he does nothing that is unusual or inconsistent with his rank. Meanwhile, the reply points out the folly of Peter’s wisdom. The same thing will always happen to us, whenever the Lord begins to contend with us. So long as he remains silent, men imagine that they have a good right to differ from him: but nothing is easier far him than to refute, by a single word, all the plausible arguments which they employ. As Christ is Lord and Master, Peter thinks it inconsistent that Christ should wash his feet. But the evil is, ⁴³ that, in refusing such a service, he rejects the principal part of his own salvation. There is also a general doctrine contained in this statement, that we are all filthy and abominable in the sight of God, until Christ wash away our stains. Now, since he claims for himself the exclusive right of washing, let every man present himself, o be cleansed from his pollution, that he may obtain a place among the children of God.

But before proceeding farther, we must understand what is the meaning of the word wash. Some refer it to the free pardon of sins; others, to newness of life; while a third class extends it to. both, and this last view I cheerfully admit. For Christ washes us when he removes the guilt of our sins by his atoning sacrifice, that they may not come into judgment before God; and, on the other hand, he washes us when he takes away, by his Spirit, the wicked and sinful desires of the flesh. But as it will shortly afterwards be evident from what follows, that he speaks of the grace of regeneration, I do not absolutely maintain the opinion that he included here the washing of pardon.

Calvin: Joh 13:9

9.Lord, not my feet only. When Peter heard that he was ruined, if he did not accept the cleansing which was offered to him by Christ, this necessity proved, at length, to be a sufficient instructor to tame him. He therefore lays aside opposition and yields, but wishes to be entirely washed, and, indeed, acknowledges that, for his own part, he is altogether covered with pollution, and, therefore, that it is doing nothing, if he be only washed in one part. But here too he goes wrong through thoughtlessness, in treating, as a thing of no value, the benefit which he had already received; for he speaks as if he had not yet obtained any pardon of sins, or any sanctification by the Holy Spirit. On this account, Christ justly reproves him, for he recalls to his recollection what he had formerly bestowed on him; at the same time, reminding all his disciples in the person of one man, that, while they remembered the grace which they had received, they should consider what they still needed for the future.

Calvin: Joh 13:10

10.He who is washed needeth not to wash more than his feet, but is altogether clean First, he says that believers are altogether clean; not that they are in every respect pure, so that there no longer remains in them any stain, but because they are cleansed in their chief part; that is, when sin is deprived of its kingly power, so that the righteousness of God holds the superiority; just as if we were to say, that a body was altogether healthy, Because it was not infected with any universal disease. It is by newness of life, therefore, that we must testify ourselves to be the disciples of Christ, for he declares that he is the Author of purity in all his followers.

Again, the other comparison was also applied to the case in hand, that Peter might not set aside the washing of the feet as foolish; for, as Christ washes from the head to the feet, those whom he receives as his disciples, so, in those whom he has cleansed, the lower part remains to be daily cleansed. The children of God are not altogether regenerated on the first day, so as to aim at nothing but the heavenly life; but, on the contrary, the remains of the flesh continue to dwell in them, with which they maintain a continued struggle throughout their whole life. The term feet, therefore, is metaphorically applied to all the passions and cares by which we are brought into contact with the world; for, if the Holy Spirit occupied every part of us, we would no longer have anything to do with the pollutions of the world; but now, by that part in which we are carnal, we creep on the ground, or at least fix our feet ill the clay, and, therefor are to some extent unclean. Thus Christ always finds in us something to cleanse. What is here spoken of is not the forgiveness of sins, but the renewal, by which Christ, by gradual and uninterrupted succession, delivers his followers entirely from the sinful desires of the flesh.

And you are clean This proposition may be said to be the minor in the syllogism, and hence it follows that the washing of the feet applies to them with strict propriety.

But not all This exception is added, that every one may examine himself, if Judas may perhaps be moved by a feeling of repentance; though he intended by it to take an early opportunity of fortifying the rest of the disciples, that they might not be perplexed by the atrocity of the crime, which was soon afterwards to be made known. Yet he purposely abstains from naming him, that he may not shut against him the gate of repentance. As that hardened hypocrite ⁴⁴ was utterly desperate, the warning served only to aggravate his guilt; but it was of great advantage to the other disciples, for by means of it the Divinity of Christ was more fully made known to them, and they likewise perceived that purity is no ordinary gift of the Holy Spirit.

Calvin: Joh 13:12

12.When then he had washed their feet Christ at length explains what was his intention in washing the feet of his disciples; for what he had said about the spiritual washing was a sort of digression from his main design. Had it not been for the opposition made by Peter, Christ would not have spoken on that subject. Now, therefore, he discloses the reason of what he had done; namely, that he who is the Master and Lord of all gave an example to be followed by all the godly, that none might grudge to descend to do a service to his brethren and equals, however mean and low that service might be. For the reason why the love of the brethren is despised is, that every man thinks more highly of himself than he ought, and despises almost every other person. Nor did he intend merely to inculcate modesty, but likewise to lay down this rule of brotherly love, that they should serve one another; for there is no brotherly love where there is not a voluntary subjection in assisting a neighbor.

Know you what I have done? We see that Christ, for a short time, concealed his intention from his disciples, but that, after having tried their obedience, he seasonably revealed to them that which it was not expedient for them previously to know. Nor does he now wait till they ask, but of his own accord anticipates them. The same thing will be experienced by us also, provided that we suffer ourselves to be guided by his hand, even through unknown ways.

Calvin: Joh 13:14

14.If then I, who am your Lord and Master This is an argument from the greater to the less. Pride hinders us from maintaining that equality which ought to exist amongst us. But Christ, who is far exalted above all others, stoops down, that he may make the proud men ashamed, who, forgetting their station and rank, look upon themselves as not bound to hold intercourse with the brethren. For what does a mortal man imagine himself to be, when he refuses to bear the burdens of brethren, to accommodate himself to their customs, and, in short, to perform those offices by which the unity of the Church is maintained? In short, he means that the man who does not think of associating with weak brethren, on the condition of submitting mildly and gently even to offices which appear to be mean, claims more than he has a right to claim, and has too high an opinion of himself. ⁴⁷

Calvin: Joh 13:15

15.For I have given you an example It deserves our attention that Christ says that he gave an example; for we are not at liberty to take all his actions, without reserve, as subjects of imitation. The Papists boast that, by Christ’s example, they observe the forty days’ fast, or Lent. But we ought first to see whether or not he intended to lay down his fast as an example that the disciples might conform to it as a rule. We read: nothing of this sort, and, therefore, the imitation of it is not less wicked than if they attempted to fly to heaven. Besides, when they ought to have followed Christ, they were not imitators, but apes. Every year they have a fashion of washing some people’s feet, as if it were a farce which they were playing on the stage; ⁴⁸ and so, when they have performed this idle and unmeaning ceremony, they think that they have fully discharged their duty, and reckon themselves at liberty to despise their brethren during the rest of the year. ⁴⁹ But — what is far worse ⁵⁰ — after having washed the feet of twelve men, they subject every member of Christ to cruel torture, and thus spit in Christ’s face. This display of buffoonery, therefore, is nothing else than a shameful mockery of Christ. At all events, Christ does not here enjoin an annual ceremony, but bids us be ready, throughout our whole life, to wash the feet of our brethren and neighbors. ⁵¹

Calvin: Joh 13:16

16.Verily, verily, I tell you These are indeed proverbial sayings, which admit of a far more extensive application, but which ought to be accommodated to the case in hand. In my opinion, therefore, they are mistaken who suppose them to have a general acceptation, as if Christ were now exhorting his disciples to bear the cross; for it is more correct to say that he employed them to serve his purpose.

Calvin: Joh 13:17

17.If you know these things He declares that they are happy, if they know and do these things; for knowledge is not entitled to be called true, unless it produce such an effect on believers as to lead them to conform themselves to their Head. On the contrary, it is a vain imagination, when we look upon Christ, and the things which belong to Christ, as separate from ourselves. We may infer from this that, until a man has learned to yield to his brethren, he does not know if Christ be the Master. Since there is no man who performs his duty to his brethren hi all respects, and since there are many who are careless and sluggish in brotherly offices, this shows us that we are still at a great distance from the full light of faith.

Calvin: Joh 13:18

18.I speak not of you all He again declares that there is one among the disciples who, in reality, is the very reverse of a disciple; and he does so, partly for the sake of Judas, in order to render him the more inexcusable, and partly for the sake of the others, ‘That they may not be overpowered by the ruin of Judas. Not only does he encourage them still to persevere in their calling when Judas falls away; but as the happiness which he speaks of is not common to all, he exhorts them to desire it with so much the greater eagerness, and to adhere to it the more firmly.

I know whom I have chosen This very circumstance — that they will persevere — he ascribes to their election; for the virtue of men, being frail, would tremble at every breeze, and would be laid down by the feeblest stroke, if the Lord did not uphold it by his hand. But as he governs those whom he has elected, all the engines which Satan can employ will not prevent them from persevering to the end with unshaken firmness. And not only does he ascribe to election their perseverance, but likewise the commencement of their piety. Whence does it arise that one man, rather than another, devotes himself to the word of God? It is, because he was elected. Again, whence does it arise that this man makes progress, and continues to lead a good and holy life, but because the purpose of God is unchangeable, to complete the work which was begun by his hand? In short, this is the source of the distinction between the children of God and unbelievers, that the former are drown to salvation by the Spirit of adoption, while the latter are hurried to destruction by their flesh, which is under no restraint. Otherwise Christ might have said, “know what kind of person each of you will be;” but that they may not claim anything for themselves, but, on the contrary, may acknowledge that, by the grace of God alone, and not by their own virtue, they differ from Judas, he places before them that election by free grace on which they are founded. Let us, therefore, learn that every part of our salvation depends on election.

In another passage he includes Judas in the number of the elect.

Have not I chosen (or, elected) you twelve,
and one of you is a devil? (Joh 6:70.) ⁵³

But in that passage the mode of expression, though different, is not opposite’, for there the word denotes a temporal election, by which God appoints us to any particular work; in the same manner as Saul, who was elected to be a king, and yet was a reprobate. But here Christ speaks of the eternal election, by which we become the children of God, and by which God predestinated us to life before the creation of the world. And, indeed, the reprobate are sometime, endued by God with the gifts of the Spirit, to execute the office with which he invests them. Thus, in Saul, we perceive, for a time, the splendor of royal virtues, and thus Judas also was distinguished by eminent gifts, and such as were adapted to an apostle of Christ. But this is widely different from the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, which the Lord bestows on none but his own children; for he renews them in understanding and heart, that they may be holy and unblameable in his sight. Besides, that sanctification has a deep root in them, which cannot be removed; because the adoption of God is without repentance. Meanwhile, let us regard it as a settled point, that it results from the election of God, when, having embraced by faith the doctrine of Christ, we also follow it during our life; and that this is the only cause of our happiness, by which we are distinguished from the reprobate; for they, being destitute of the grace of the Spirit, miserably perish, while we have Christ for our guardian, who guides us by his hand, and upholds us by his power.

Besides, Christ gives here a clear proof of his Divinity; first, when he declares that he does not judge after the manner of men; and, secondly, when he pronounces himself to be the Author of election. For when he says, I know, the knowledge, of which he speaks, belongs peculiarly to God; but the second proof — contained in the words, whom I have chosen — is far more powerful, for he testifies that they who were elected before the creation of the world were elected by himself. So remarkable a demonstration of his Divine power ought to affect us more deeply, than if the Scripture had called him God a hundred times.

That the Scripture may be fulfilled It might have been thought improper that one should have been elected to so honorable a rank, who yet did not possess true piety; for it might readily have been objected, Why did not Christ elect one whom he intended to admit into the number of the Apostles? or rather Why did he appoint a man to be an Apostle, who, he well knew, would become so wicked? He explains that this must have happened, because it was foretold; of at least, that it was no new occurrence, for David had experienced the same thing. For some think that it is a prediction quoted, which properly applies to Christ; while others think that it is merely a comparison, that, as David was basely betrayed by a private enemy, so a similar condition awaits the children of God. According to the latter, the meaning would be: That one of my disciples wickedly betrays his Master, is not the first instance of treachery that has taken place in the world; but, on the contrary, we now experience what Scripture declares to have happened in ancient times.” But, as in David there was shadowed out what was afterwards to be seen more fully in Christ, I readily agree with the former expositors, who think that this was strictly the fulfillment of that which David, by the Spirit of prophecy, had foretold, (Psa 41:9.) Besides, some are of opinion that the clause under consideration does not contain a complete sense, and needs to have the principal verb supplied. But if we read it continuously, That the Scripture may be fulfilled, he who eateth bread with me lifteth up his heel against me, there will be nothing wanting.

To lift up the heel is a metaphorical expression, and means, to attack a person in an unperceived manner, under the pretense of friendship, so as to gain an advantage over him, when he is not on his guard. Now what Christ suffered, who is our Head and our Pattern, we, who are his members, ought to endure patiently. And, indeed, it has usually happened in the Church in almost every age, that it has had no enemies more inveterate than the members of the Church; and, therefore, that believers may not have their minds disturbed by such atrocious wickedness, let them accustom themselves early to endure the attacks of traitors.

Calvin: Joh 13:19

19.I tell you this now, before it happen By this statement he reminds his disciples that, when one of their number becomes a reprobate, this is so far from being a good reason for their being discouraged, that it ought to be a more full confirmation of their faith. For if we did not see before our eyes, in the Church, what has been foretold about her distresses and struggles, a doubt might justly arise in our minds, Where are the prophecies? But when the truth of Scripture agrees with our daily experience,¹⁷ then do we perceive more clearly, that God takes care of us, and that we are governed by his providence.

That you may believe that I am ⁵⁴ By the phrase, that I am, he means that he is that Messiah who had been promised; not that the conduct of Judas, as a traitor, was the first event that led the disciples to the exercise of faith, but because their faith made greater progress, when they arrived at the experience of those things which they had formerly heard from the mouth of Christ. Now this may be explained in two ways; either that Christ says that they will believe after the event has happened, because there was nothing which was hidden from him, or that nothing will be wanting in him of all that the Scripture testifies concerning Christ. As the two interpretations agree well enough together, I leave my readers at liberty to choose which of them they will prefer.

Calvin: Joh 13:20

20.Verily, verily, I tell you In these words either the Evangelist relates a discourse on a different subject, and in a broken and imperfect state, or, Christ intended to meet the offense which was likely to arise from the crime of Judas; for the Evangelists do not always exhibit the discourses of Christ in unbroken succession, but sometimes throw together, in heaps, a variety of statements. It is more probable, however, that Christ intended to provide against this scandal. There is too good evidence that we are very ready to be wounded by bad examples; for, in consequence of this, the revolt of one man inflicts a deadly wound on two hundred others, while the steadiness of ten or twenty pious men hardly edifies a single individual. On this account, while Christ was placing such a monster before the eyes of his disciples, it was also necessary that he should stretch out his hand to them, lest, struck by the novelty, they should fall back. Nor was it only on their account that he said this, but he also consulted the advantage of those who should come after; for, otherwise, the remembrance of Judas might, even at the present day:, do us grievous injury. When the devil cannot estrange us from Christ by hatred of his doctrine, he excites either dislike or contempt of the ministers themselves.

Now this admonition of Christ shows that it is unreasonable that the impiety of any whose conduct is wicked or unbecoming their office, should at all diminish the apostolical authority. The reason is, we ought to contemplate God, the Author of the ministry, in whom, certainly, we find nothing which we have a right to despise; and next, we ought to contemplate Christ, who, having been appointed by the Father to be the only Teacher, speaks by his apostles. Whoever, then, does not deign to receive the ministers of the Gospel, rejects Christ in them, and rejects God in Christ.

The Papists act a foolish and ridiculous part, when they endeavor to obtain this applause for themselves, in order exhibit their tyranny. For, in the first place, they adorn themselves with begged and borrowed feathers, having no resemblance to the apostles of Christ; and, secondly, granting that they are apostles, nothing was farther from Christ’s intention, in this passage, than to transfer his own right to men; for what else is it to receive those whom Christ sends, but to give place to them, that they may fulfill the office which has been committed to them?

Calvin: Joh 13:21

21.When Jesus had said these words The more sacred the apostolic office is, and the higher its dignity, the more base and detestable was the treachery of Judas. A crime so monstrous and detestable struck Christ himself with horror, when he saw how the incredible wickedness of one man had polluted that sacred order in which the majesty of God ought to have shone with brightness. To the same purpose is what the Evangelist adds, that he testified. His meaning is, the action was so monstrous that the bare mention of it could not be immediately believed.

He was troubled in spirit The Evangelist says that Christ was troubled in spirit, in order to inform us that he did not merely, in countenance and language, assume the appearance of a man who was troubled, but that he was deeply moved in his mind. Spirit here denotes the understanding, or, the soul; for I do not assent to the opinion of some who explain it, as if Christ had been driven by a violent impulse of the Holy Spirit to break out into these words. I readily acknowledge. that all the affections of Christ were guided by the Holy Spirit; but the meaning of the Evangelist is different, namely, that this suffering of Christ was inward, and was not feigned; and it is of great importance for us to know this, because his zeal is held out for our imitation, that we may be moved with deep horror by those monsters which overturn the sacred order of God and of his Church.

Calvin: Joh 13:22

22.The disciples, therefore, looked on one another They who are not conscious of any crime are rendered uneasy by what Christ has said: Judas alone is so stupid amidst his malice, that he remains unmoved. The authority of Christ was held in so great estimation by the disciples, that they were fully convinced that he said nothing without a good reason; but Satan had expelled from the heart of Judas all reverence, so that it was harder than a rock to reject every admonition. And though Christ appears to be somewhat unkind in inflicting this torture, for a time, on those who were innocent, yet as anxiety of this kind was profitable to them, Christ did them no injury. It is proper that, when the children of God have heard the sentence of the ungodly, they should themselves feel uneasiness, that they may sift themselves, and guard against hypocrisy; for this gives them an opportunity of examining themselves and their life.

This passage shows that we ought sometimes to reprove the ungodly in such a manner as not instantly to point the finger to them, until God, by his own hand, drag them forth to the light. For it frequently happens that there are secret diseases in the Church, which we are not at liberty to disguise; and yet the wickedness of men is not so ripe as to be capable of being laid open. In such cases we ought to take this middle path.

Calvin: Joh 13:23

23.Whom Jesus loved. The peculiar love with which Christ loved John plainly testifies that, if we love some more than others, this is not always inconsistent with brotherly love; but all lies in this, that our love shall be directed towards God, and that every man, in proportion as he excels in the gifts of God, shall share in it the more largely. From this end Christ never turned aside in the smallest degree; but with us the case is widely different, for such is the vanity of our mind, that there are few who, in loving men, approach more nearly to God. And yet the love of men towards each other will never be properly regulated, unless it be directed to God.

Lay at table in Jesus’ bosom What is here related by John might be regarded in the present day as indecorous; but such was, at that time, the manner of being placed at table; for they did not sit, as we do, at table, but, after having put off their shoes, lay half-stretched out, reclining on small cushions.

Calvin: Joh 13:26

26.To whom I shall give the dipped sop It may be asked, what purpose did it serve to give a dipped sop, for discovering the traitor, when Christ might have openly pointed him out by name, if he wished to make him known? I answer, the sign was of such a nature, that it discovered Judas to one person only, and did not immediately bring him forward to the view of all. But it was advantageous that John should be witness of this fact, in order that he might afterwards reveal it to others at the proper time; and Christ intentionally delayed to make Judas publicly known, that, when hypocrites are concealed, we may more patiently bear, till they are dragged forth to the light. We see Judas sitting amongst the others, and yet condemned by the mouth of the Judge. In no respect better is the condition of those who hold a place among the children of God.

Calvin: Joh 13:27

27.Satan entered into him As it is certain that it was only at the instigation of Satan that Judas formed the design of committing so heinous a crime, why is it now said, for the first time, that Satan entered into him, who had already held the throne in his heart? But as they who are more fully confirmed in The faith which they formerly possessed are often said to believe, and thus an increase of their faith is called faith, so now that Judas is utterly given up to Satan, so as to be hurried on, by vehement impetuosity, to every extremity of evil, Satan is said to have entered into him. For as the saints make gradual progress, and in proportion to the new gifts by which they are continually enlarged, they are said to be filled with the Holy Spirit; so, in proportion as wicked men provoke the anger of God against themselves by their ingratitude, The Lord deprives them of his Spirit, of all light of reason, and, indeed, of all human feeling, and delivers them unreservedly to Satan. This is a dreadful vengeance of God, when men are given up to a reprobate mind, (Rom 1:28,) so that they scarcely differ at all from the brutes, and — what is worse — fall into horrid crimes from which the brutes themselves would shrink. We ought, therefore, to walk diligently in the fear of the Lord, lest, if we overpower his goodness by our wickedness, he at length give us up to the rage of, Satan.

By giving the sop, Christ did not give an opportunity to Satan, but rather Judas, having received the sop, gave himself up entirely to Satan. It was, indeed, the occasion, but not the cause. His heart, which was harder than iron, ought to have been softened by so great kindness showed to him by Christ; and now his desperate and incurable obstinacy deserves that God, by his just judgment, should harden his heart still more by Satan. Thus, when, by acts of kindness to enemies, we heap coals of fire on their heads, (Rom 12:20,) if they are utterly incurable, they are the more enraged and inflamed ⁵⁵ to their destruction. And yet no blame is due, on this account, to our kindness, by which their hearts ought to have been inflamed to love us.

Augustine was wrong in thinking that this sop was an emblem of the body of Christ, since it was not during the Lord’s Supper that it was given to Judas. It is also a very foolish dream to imagine that the devil entered essentially — as the phrase is — into Judas; for the Evangelist speaks only of the power and efficacy of Satan. This example reminds us what a dreadful punishment awaits all those who profane the gifts of the Lord by abusing them.

What thou doest, do quickly The exhortation addressed by Christ to Judas is not of such a nature that he can be regarded as exciting him to do the action: it is rather the language of one who views the crime with horror and detestation. ⁵⁶ Hitherto he had endeavored, by various methods, to bring him back, but to no purpose. Now he addresses him as a desperate man, “Go to destruction, since you have resolved to go to destruction;” and, in doing so, he performs the office of a, judge, who condemns to death not those whom he, of his own accord, desires to ruin, but those who have already ruined themselves by their own fault. In short, Christ does not lay Judas under the necessity of perishing, but declares him to be what he had formerly been.

Calvin: Joh 13:28

28.Not one of those who were at table Either John had not yet related to others what Christ had told him, or they were so much struck by it, that they lost their presence of mind; and, indeed, ill is probable, that John himself was almost out of his senses. But what then happened to the disciples, we frequently see: taking place in the Church, that few of the believers discern the hypocrites whom the Lord loudly condemns.

Defender: Joh 13:2

Judas' heart was already full of greed and deception and so was easily available for Satan to possess (Joh 13:27). He had never been a true disciple, for Jesus recognized him as "the son of perdition" (Joh 17:12) but had included him in their company "that the scripture may be fulfilled" (Joh 13:18)."

Defender: Joh 13:4

On an earthly scale, this was analogous to when He emptied Himself of His heavenly vestures to come to earth where He "took upon him the form of a servant" (Phi 2:7). When He again took up His garments (Joh 13:12), it would be analogous to Phi 2:9, Phi 2:10; when He returned to heaven."

Defender: Joh 13:5

Instead of serving each other, the disciples had been arguing who would be the greatest among them (Luk 22:24-27). This action of their Master convicted them, and they never argued this point again."

Defender: Joh 13:10

Two different Greek words are used for "wash" in this verse, indicating a typological as well as practical teaching. The first "washed" means "bathed all over," as in the "washing of regeneration" (Tit 3:5) or the "washing of water by the word" (Eph 5:26). The second "wash" refers to a partial "cleansing" of only that part which needs it (the face, hands, feet, etc.). Thus, regeneration occurs once only but is followed by daily confession and cleansing (1Jo 1:7, 1Jo 1:9). In addition to the feet walking daily in a sinful world, the head and hands also may need daily cleansing; the head (or mind) needs to be "renewed" (Rom 12:2), and the hands prepared for service."

Defender: Joh 13:13

It is interesting and significant that the disciples, in speaking to Christ, never address Him simply as Jesus or even as Christ. They almost always addressed Him as "Lord" and occasionally as "Master." In writing their narratives about His acts and words, they would refer to Him as Jesus "did", or "said." That was His human name and a very fitting name, but their relation to Him was not that of man-to-man but that of servant to Lord or disciple to Master. When we address Him in prayer, we do well to honor Him by following their example. When we do this, He would say, as He did to His first disciples, "Ye say well" (1Co 12:3; Phi 2:9, Phi 2:10; Rom 10:9, Rom 10:10)."

Defender: Joh 13:15

Here the Lord has given us an example (1Pe 2:21), not a specific commandment. He did not say: "Do what I have done to you" but rather: "Do as I have done to you." The example is that of willingness to do menial service as needed to help others. In that day, walking on dusty roads in open sandals, one's feet became dirty and very tired by supper time, and it was customary for a host to have servants wash the feet of any guests he might invite to sup with him as an act of courtesy and kindness. The exact situation would rarely be duplicated in our culture today, so the exact courtesy would hardly be appropriate. However, the principle of service - even menial service when needed - is still very important, and should be characteristic of all His disciples."

Defender: Joh 13:18

The prophecy, of which this is a fulfillment, is found in Psa 41:9."

Defender: Joh 13:23

The Apostle John never identified himself by name in his Gospel (though he did in the first verse of Revelation) but occasionally called himself the disciple whom Jesus loved (Joh 19:26; Joh 20:2; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:20)."

TSK: Joh 13:1

the feast : Joh 6:4; Mat 26:2-5; Mar 14:1, Mar 14:2; Luk 22:1, Luk 22:2

knew : Joh 7:6, Joh 7:30, Joh 8:20, Joh 11:9, Joh 11:10, Joh 12:23, Joh 17:1, Joh 17:11, Joh 18:4; Mat 26:45; Luk 9:51; Luk 13:32, Luk 13:33, Luk 22:53

depart : Joh 13:3, Joh 14:28, Joh 16:5-7, Joh 16:28, Joh 17:5, Joh 17:11, Joh 17:13

having : Joh 13:34, Joh 15:9, Joh 15:10,Joh 15:13, Joh 15:14, Joh 17:9, Joh 17:10,Joh 17:14, Joh 17:16, Joh 17:26; Jer 31:3; Rom 8:37; Eph 5:25, Eph 5:26; 1Jo 4:19; Rev 1:5

unto : Mat 28:20; 1Co 1:8; Heb 3:6, Heb 3:14, Heb 6:11; 1Pe 1:13

TSK: Joh 13:2

supper : Joh 13:4, Joh 13:26

the devil : Joh 13:27, Joh 6:70; Luk 22:3, Luk 22:31; Act 5:3; Eph 2:3

put : Ezr 7:27; Neh 2:12; 2Co 8:16; Jam 1:13-17; Rev 17:17

TSK: Joh 13:3

knowing : Joh 3:35, Joh 5:22-27, Joh 17:2; Mat 11:27, Mat 28:18; Luk 10:22; Act 2:36; 1Co 15:27; Eph 1:21, Eph 1:22; Phi 2:9-11; Heb 1:2, Heb 2:8, Heb 2:9

and that : Joh 13:1, Joh 1:18, Joh 3:13, Joh 7:29, Joh 7:33, Joh 8:42, Joh 16:27, Joh 16:28, Joh 17:5-8, Joh 17:11-13

TSK: Joh 13:4

laid aside : That is, his gown, or upper coat, ιματια , with the girdle by which it was girdled close to his tunic, or inner coat; and instead of his girdle, he tied a towel about him, that he might have it in readiness to dry their feet,and that he might appear as a servant. Indeed the whole action was a servile one; and never performed by a superior to an inferior. Luk 12:37, Luk 17:7, Luk 22:27; 2Co 8:9; Phi 2:6-8

TSK: Joh 13:5

poureth : Joh 19:34; 2Ki 3:11; Eze 36:25; Zec 13:1; Eph 5:26; 1Jo 5:6

to wash : Joh 13:8; Exo 29:4; Lev 14:8; 2Ki 5:10-13; Psa 51:2; Isa 1:16; Act 22:16; 1Co 6:11; Tit 3:3-5; Heb 10:22; 1Jo 1:7; Rev 1:5, Rev 7:14

feet : Joh 13:10,Joh 13:12-14; Gen 18:4, Gen 19:2; 1Sa 25:41; Luk 7:38, Luk 7:44; 1Ti 5:10

TSK: Joh 13:6

Peter : Gr. he

Lord : Joh 1:27; Mat 3:11-14; Luk 5:8

TSK: Joh 13:7

What : Joh 13:10-12, Joh 12:16, Joh 14:26; Jer 32:24, Jer 32:25, Jer 32:43; Dan 12:8, Dan 12:12; Hab 2:1-3; Jam 5:7-11

TSK: Joh 13:8

Thou shalt : Gen 42:38; Mat 16:22, Mat 21:29, Mat 26:33, Mat 26:35; Col 2:18, Col 2:23

If : Joh 13:6, Joh 3:5; Isa 4:4; Eze 16:4-9, Eze 36:25; Zec 13:1; Act 22:16; 1Co 6:11; Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5; Heb 9:22, Heb 9:23, Heb 10:4-10,Heb 10:22; Rev 1:5, Rev 7:14

TSK: Joh 13:9

not : Psa 26:6, Psa 51:2, Psa 51:7; Jer 4:14; Mat 27:24; Heb 10:22; 1Pe 3:21

TSK: Joh 13:10

He : Lev 16:26, Lev 16:28, Lev 17:15, Lev 17:16; Num 19:7, Num 19:8, Num 19:12, Num 19:13, Num 19:19-21; Heb 9:10 *Gr.

needeth : Ecc 7:20; Mat 6:12; Rom 7:20-23; 2Co 7:1; Eph 4:22-24, Eph 5:26, Eph 5:27; 1Th 5:23; Jam 3:2; 1Jo 1:7-10

but : Son 4:7; Jer 50:20; 2Co 5:17, 2Co 5:21

ye : Joh 15:3

TSK: Joh 13:11

Joh 13:18, Joh 13:21, Joh 13:26, Joh 2:25, Joh 6:64-71, Joh 17:12; Mat 26:24, Mat 26:25

TSK: Joh 13:12

Know : Joh 13:7; Eze 24:19, Eze 24:24; Mat 13:51; Mar 4:13

TSK: Joh 13:13

call : Joh 11:28; Mat 7:21, Mat 7:22, Mat 23:8-10; Luk 6:46; Rom 14:8, Rom 14:9; 1Co 8:6, 1Co 12:3; Phi 2:11, Phi 3:8; 2Pe 1:14-16

and : Jer 1:12; Luk 7:43, Luk 10:28; Jam 2:19

TSK: Joh 13:14

I then : Mat 20:26-28; Mar 10:43-45; Luk 22:26, Luk 22:27; 2Co 8:9; Phi 2:5-8; Heb 5:8, Heb 5:9, Heb 12:2

ye also : Act 20:35; Rom 12:10,Rom 12:16, Rom 15:1-3; 1Co 8:13, 1Co 9:19-22; 2Co 10:1; Gal 5:13; Gal 6:1, Gal 6:2; Phi 2:2-5; 1Pe 4:1, 1Pe 5:5

TSK: Joh 13:15

given : Mat 11:29; Rom 15:5 *marg. Eph 5:2; 1Pe 2:21, 1Pe 3:17, 1Pe 3:18; 1Jo 2:6

TSK: Joh 13:16

Verily : Joh 3:3, Joh 3:5

The servant : Joh 15:20; Mat 10:24, Mat 10:25; Luk 6:40

TSK: Joh 13:17

happy : Joh 15:14; Gen 6:22; Exo 40:16; Psa 19:11, Psa 119:1-5; Eze 36:27; Mat 7:24, Mat 7:25; Mat 12:50, Mat 22:38-41; Luk 12:47, Luk 12:48; 2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15; Gal 5:6; Heb 11:7, Heb 11:8; Jam 1:25, Jam 2:20-24, Jam 4:17; Rev 22:14

TSK: Joh 13:18

I know : Joh 13:11, Joh 17:12, Joh 21:17; 2Co 4:5; Heb 4:13; Rev 2:23

but : Psa 41:9; Mat 10:36, Mat 26:23; Mar 14:20

TSK: Joh 13:19

Now : or, From henceforth

I tell : Joh 14:29, Joh 16:4; Isa 41:23, Isa 48:5; Mat 24:25; Luk 21:13

that I : Joh 1:15, Joh 8:23, Joh 8:24, Joh 8:58; Isa 43:10; Mal 3:1; Mat 11:3; Rev 1:17, Rev 1:18

TSK: Joh 13:20

He : Joh 12:44-48; Mat 10:40-42, Mat 25:40; Mar 9:37; Luk 9:48, Luk 10:16; Gal 4:14; Col 2:6; 1Th 4:8

TSK: Joh 13:21

he was : Joh 11:33, Joh 11:35, Joh 11:38, Joh 12:27; Mat 26:38; Mar 3:5; Act 17:16; Rom 9:2, Rom 9:3; 2Co 2:12, 2Co 2:13

one : Joh 13:2, Joh 13:18; Mat 26:21; Mar 14:18; Luk 22:21, Luk 22:22; Act 1:16, Act 1:17; 1Jo 2:19

TSK: Joh 13:22

looked : Gen 42:1; Mat 26:22; Mar 14:19; Luk 22:23

TSK: Joh 13:23

leaning : Joh 13:25, Joh 1:18, Joh 21:20; 2Sa 12:3

whom : Joh 11:3, Joh 11:5, Joh 11:36, Joh 19:26, Joh 20:2, Joh 21:7, Joh 21:24; Rev 1:16-18

TSK: Joh 13:24

beckoned : Luk 1:22, Luk 5:7; Act 12:17, Act 13:16, Act 21:40

TSK: Joh 13:25

who : Gen 44:4-12; Est 7:5

TSK: Joh 13:26

He it is : Joh 13:30; Mat 26:23; Mar 14:19, Mar 14:20; Luk 22:21

sop : or, morsel

Judas Iscariot : Joh 6:70,Joh 6:71, Joh 12:4-6

TSK: Joh 13:27

Satan : Joh 13:2; Psa 109:6; Mat 12:45; Luk 8:32, Luk 8:33, Luk 22:3; Act 5:3

That : 1Ki 18:27; Pro 1:16; Ecc 9:3; Jer 2:24, Jer 2:25; Dan 2:15; Mar 6:25; Jam 1:13-15

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Joh 13:1

The feast of the passover - See the notes at Mat 26:2, Mat 26:17.

His hour was come - The hour appointed in the purpose of God for him to die, Joh 12:27.

Having loved his own - Having given to them decisive and constant proofs of his love. This was done by his calling them to follow him; by patiently teaching them; by bearing with their errors and weaknesses; and by making them the heralds of his truth and the heirs of eternal life.

He loved them unto the end - That is, he continued the proofs of his love until he was taken away from them by death. Instances of that love John proceeds immediately to record in his washing their feet and in the institution of the Lord’ s Supper. We may remark that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change; he always loves the same traits of character; nor does he withdraw his love from the soul. If his people walk in darkness and wander from him, the fault is theirs, not his. His is the character of a friend that never leaves or forsakes us; a friend that sticketh closer than a brother. Psa 37:28; "the Lord ...forsaketh not his saints."Isa 49:14-17; Pro 18:24.

Barnes: Joh 13:2

Supper being ended - This translation expresses too much. The original means while they were at supper; and that this is the meaning is clear from the fact that we find them still eating after this. The Arabic and Persic translations give it this meaning. The Latin Vulgate renders it like the English.

The devil - The leader or prince of evil spirits.

Having now put it into the heart - Literally, having cast it into the heart. Compare Eph 6:16; "The fiery darts of the wicked."See Act 5:3; Luk 22:3. The meaning of this passage is that Satan inclined the mind of Judas to do this, or he tempted him to betray his Master. We know not precisely how this was done, but we know that it was by means of his avarice. Satan could tempt no one unless there was some inclination of the mind, some natural or depraved propensity that he could make use of. He presents objects in alluring forms fitted to that propensity, and under the influence of a strong or a corrupt inclination the soul yields to sin. In the case of Judas it was the love of money; and it was necessary to present to him only the possibility of obtaining money, and it found him ready for any crime.

Barnes: Joh 13:3

Jesus knowing ... - With the full understanding of his dignity and elevation of character, he yet condescended to wash their feet. The evangelist introduces his washing their feet by saying that he was fully conscious of his elevation above them, as being intrusted with all things, and this made his humiliation the more striking and remarkable. Had he been a mere human teacher or a prophet, it would have been remarkable; but when we remember the dignity of his nature, it shows how low he would stoop to teach and save his people.

Had given all things ... - See the notes at Mat 28:18.

Was come from God - See the notes at Joh 8:42.

Went to God - Was about to return to heaven. See Joh 6:61-62.

Barnes: Joh 13:4

He riseth from supper - Evidently while they were eating. See Joh 13:2.

Laid aside his garments - His outer garment. See the notes at Mat 5:40. This was his mantle or robe, which is said to have been without seam. It was customary to lay this aside when they worked or ran, or in the heat of summer.

Took a towel and girded himself - This was the manner of a servant or slave. See the notes at Luk 17:8.

Barnes: Joh 13:5

Began to wash ... - It was uniformly the office of a servant to wash the feet of guests, 1Sa 25:41. It became a matter of necessity where they traveled without shoes, and where they reclined on couches at meals. It should be remembered here that the disciples were not sitting at the table, as we do, but were lying with their feet extended from the table, so that Jesus could easily have access to them. See the notes at Mat 23:6.

Barnes: Joh 13:6

Dost thou wash my feet? - Every word here is emphatic. Dost thou - the Son of God, the Messiah - perform the humble office of a servant - toward me, a sinner? This was an expression of Peter’ s humility, of his reverence for Jesus, and also a refusal to allow him to do it. It is possible, though not certain from the text, that he came to Simon Peter first.

Barnes: Joh 13:7

Thou knowest not now - Though he saw the action of Jesus, yet he did not fully understand the design of it. It was a symbolical action, inculcating a lesson of humility, and intended to teach it to them in such a manner that it would be impossible for them ever to forget it. Had he simply commanded them to be humble, it would have been far less forcible and impressive than when they saw him actually performing the office of a servant.

Shalt know hereafter - Jesus at that time partially explained it Joh 13:14-15; but he was teaching them by this expressive act a lesson which they would continue to learn all their lives. Every day they would see more and more the necessity of humility and of kindness to each other, and would see that they were the servants of Christ and of the church, and ought not to aspire to honors and offices, but to be willing to perform the humblest service to benefit the world. And we may remark here that God often does things which we do not fully understand now, but which we may hereafter. He often afflicts us; he disappoints us; he frustrates our plans. Why it is we do not know now, but we yet shall learn that it was for our good, and designed to teach us some important lesson of humility and piety. So he will, in heaven, scatter all doubts, remove all difficulties, and show us the reason of the whole of his mysterious dealings in his leading us in the way to our future rest. We ought also, in view of this, to submit ourselves to him; to hush every murmur, and to believe that he does all things well. It is one evidence of piety when we are willing to receive affliction at the hand of God, the reason of which we cannot see, content with the belief that we may see it hereafter; or, even if we never do, still having so much confidence in God as to believe that what He does is right.

Barnes: Joh 13:8

Thou shalt never wash my feet - This was a decided and firm expression of his reverence for his Master, and yet it was improper. Jesus had just declared that it had a meaning, and that he ought to submit to it. We should yield to all the plain and positive requirements of God, even if we cannot now see how obedience would promote his glory.

If I wash thee not - This had immediate reference to the act of washing his feet; and it denotes that if Peter had not so much confidence in him as to believe that an act which he performed was proper, though he could not see its propriety - if he was not willing to submit his will to that of Christ and implicitly obey him, he had no evidence of piety. As Christ, however, was accustomed to pass from temporal and sensible objects to those which were spiritual, and to draw instruction from whatever was before him, some have supposed that he here took occasion to state to Peter that if his soul was not made pure by him he could not be his follower. Washing is often thus put as an emblem of moral purification, 1Co 6:11; Tit 3:5-6. This is the meaning, also, of baptism. If this was the sense in which Jesus used these words, it denotes that unless Christ should purify Peter, he could have no evidence that he was his disciple. "Unless by my doctrine and spirit I shall purify you, and remove your pride Mat 26:33, your lack of constant watchfulness Mat 26:40, your anger Mat 26:51, your timidity and fear Mat 26:70, Mat 26:74, you can have no part in me"(Grotius).

Hast no part with me - Nothing in common with me. No evidence of possessing my spirit, of being interested in my work, and no participation in my glory.

Barnes: Joh 13:9

Not my feet only ... - Peter, with characteristic readiness and ardor, saw now that everything depended on this. His whole salvation, the entire question of his attachment to his Master, was involved. If to refuse to have his feet washed was to be regarded as evidence that he had no part with Jesus, he was not only willing, but desirous that it should be done; not only anxious that his feet should be cleansed, but his hands and his head - that is, that he should be cleansed entirely, thoroughly. Perhaps he saw the spiritual meaning of the Saviour, and expressed his ardent wish that his whole soul might be made pure by the work of Christ. A true Christian is desirous of being cleansed from all sin. He has no reserve. He wishes not merely that one evil propensity should be removed, but all; that every thought should be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ 2Co 10:5; and that his whole body, soul, and spirit should be sanctified wholly and be preserved blameless unto the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, 1Th 5:23. His intellect, his will, his affections, his fancy, memory, judgment, he desires should be all brought under the influence of the gospel, and every power of the body and mind be consecrated unto God.

Barnes: Joh 13:10

He that is washed - This is a difficult passage, and interpreters have been divided about its meaning. Some have supposed that it was customary to bathe before eating the paschal supper, and that the apostles did it; Jesus having said, "he that hath bathed his body is clean except in regard to his feet - to the dirt contracted in returning from the bath, and that there was need only that the feet should be washed in order to prepare them properly to receive the supper."They suppose, also, that the lesson which Jesus meant to teach was that they were really pure Joh 15:3; that they were qualified to partake of the ordinances of religion, and needed only to be purified from occasional blemishes and impurities (Grotius). Others say that there is not evidence that the Jews bathed before partaking of the Paschal Supper, but that reference is made to the custom of washing their hands and their face. It is known that this was practiced. See the Mat 15:2 note; Mar 7:3-4 notes. Peter had requested him to wash his hands and his head. Jesus told him that as that had been done, it was unnecessary to repeat it; but to wash the feet was an act of hospitality, the office of a servant, and that all that was needed now was for him to show this condescension and humility. Probably reference is had here to internal purity, as Jesus was fond of drawing illustrations from every quarter to teach them spiritual doctrine; as if he had said, "You are clean by my word and ministry Joh 15:3; you are my followers, and are prepared for the scene before you. But one thing remains. And as, when we come to this rite, having washed, there remains no need of washing except to wash the feet, so there is now nothing remaining but for me to show you an example that you will always remember, and that shall complete my public instructions to you."

Is clean - This word may apply to the body or the soul.

Every whit - Altogether, wholly.

Ye are clean - Here the word has doubtless reference to the mind and heart.

But not all - You are not all my true followers, and fitted for the ordinance before us.

Barnes: Joh 13:11

Who should betray him - Greek: "He knew him who was about to betray him."

Barnes: Joh 13:12

Know ye what ... - Do you know the meaning or design of what I have done unto you?

Barnes: Joh 13:13

Ye call me Master - Teacher.

And Lord - This word is applied to one who rules, and is often given to God as being the Proprietor and Ruler of all things. It is given to Christ many hundred times in the New Testament.

Ye say well ... - Mat 23:8, Mat 23:10.

So I am - That is, he was their Teacher and Instructor, and he was their Sovereign and King.

Barnes: Joh 13:14-15

Ye also ought to wash ... - Some have understood this literally as instituting a religious rite which we ought to observe; but this was evidently not the design; because:

1.    There is no evidence that Jesus intended it as a religious observance, like the Lord’ s Supper or the ordinance of baptism.

2.    It was not observed by the apostles or the primitive Christians as a religious rite.

3.    It was a rite of hospitality among the Jews, a common, well-known thing, and performed by servants.

4.    It is the manifest design of Jesus here to inculcate a lesson of humility; to teach them by his example that they ought to condescend to the most humble offices for the benefit of others. They ought not to be proud, and vain, and unwilling to occupy a low place, but to regard themselves as the servants of each other, and as willing to befriend each other in every way. And especially as they were to be founders of the church, and to be greatly honored, he took this occasion of warning them against the dangers of ambition, and of teaching them, by an example that they could not forget, the duty of humility.

Barnes: Joh 13:16-17

The servant is not ... - This was universally true, and this they were to remember always, that they were to manifest the same spirit that he did, and that they were to expect the same treatment from the world. See the notes at Mat 10:24-25.

Barnes: Joh 13:18

I speak not of you all - That is, in addressing you as clean, I do not mean to say that you all possess this character.

I know whom I have chosen - He here means evidently to say that he had not chosen them all, implying that Judas had not been chosen. As, however, this word is applied to Judas in one place Joh 6:70, "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?"it must have a different meaning here from that which it has there. There it evidently refers to the apostleship. Jesus had chosen him to be an apostle, and had treated him as such. Here it refers to purity of heart, and Jesus implies that, though Judas had been chosen to the office of apostleship, yet he had not been chosen to purity of heart and life. The remaining eleven had been, and would be saved. It was not, however, the fault of Jesus that Judas was not saved, for he was admitted to the same teaching, the same familiarity, and the same office; but his execrable love of gold gained the ascendency, and rendered vain all the means used for his conversion.

But that the scripture ... - These things have occurred in order that the prophecies may receive their completion. It does not mean that Judas was compelled to this course in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, but that this was foretold, and that by this the prophecy did receive a completion. "The scripture."This is written in Psa 41:9. It is commonly understood of Ahithophel, and of the enemies of David who had been admitted to his friendship, and who had now proved ungrateful to him.

May be fulfilled - See the notes at Mat 1:22. It is difficult to tell whether this prophecy had a primary reference to Judas, or whether it be meant that it received a more complete fulfillment in his case than in the time of David. The cases were similar; the same words would describe both events, for there was an exhibition of similar ingratitude and baseness in both cases, so that the same words would fitly describe both events.

He that eateth bread with me - To eat with one was a proof of friendship. See 2Sa 9:11; Mat 9:11; Gen 43:32. This means that Judas had been admitted to all the privileges of friendship, and had partaken of the usual evidences of affection. It was this which greatly aggravated his offence. It was base ingratitude as well as murder.

Hath lifted up his heel - Suidas says that this figure is taken from those who are running in a race, when one attempts to trip the other up and make him fall. It was a base and ungrateful return for kindness to which the Lord Jesus referred, and it means that he who had been admitted to the intimacies of friendship had ungratefully and maliciously injured him. Some suppose the expression means to lay snares for one others, to kick or injure a man after he is cast down (Calvin on Psa 41:9). It is clear that it denotes great injury, and injury aggravated by the fact of professed friendship. It was not merely the common people, the open enemies, the Jewish nation that did it, but one who had received all the usual proofs of kindness. It was this which greatly aggravated our Saviour’ s sufferings.

Barnes: Joh 13:19

Now I tell you before it come ... - They would see by that that he had a knowledge of the heart and the power of foretelling future events, and must therefore have been sent by God. This does not imply that they had no faith before this, but that their faith would be increased and strengthened by it.

Barnes: Joh 13:20

He that receiveth ... - This sentiment is found in the instructions which Jesus gave to his disciples in Mat 10:40. Why he repeats it at this time cannot now be known. It is certain that it is not closely connected with the subject of his conversation. Perhaps, however, it was to show how intimately united he, his Father, his apostles, and all who received them were. They who received them received him, and they who received him received God. So he who betrayed him, betrayed, for the same reason, God. Hence Judas, who was about to betray him, was also about to betray the cause of religion in the world, and to betray God and his cause. Everything pertaining to religion is connected together. A man cannot do dishonor to one of the institutions of religion without injuring all; he cannot dishonor its ministers or the Saviour without dishonoring God. And this shows that one prominent ground of the Saviour’ s solicitude was that his Father might be honored, and one source of his deep grief at the treason of Judas was that it would bring injury upon the whole cause of religion in the world.

Barnes: Joh 13:21

Troubled in spirit - See Joh 12:27. The reason of his trouble here was that Judas, a professed friend, was about to betray him. He doubtless foresaw the deep and dreadful sorrows of his approaching death, and was also deeply affected with the ingratitude and wickedness of a professed friend. Jesus was man as well as God, and he felt like other men. His human nature shrank from suffering, and his tender sensibilities were affected not less deeply than would be those of other men by baseness and treason.

Testified - He bore witness to the truth; openly declared what he had before intimated - that one of them would betray him.

Barnes: Joh 13:22

Doubting of whom ... - The word translated "doubting"denotes that kind of anxiety which a man feels when he is in perplexity, and knows not what to say or do. We should say they were at a loss. See the notes at Mat 26:22.

Barnes: Joh 13:23

Leaning on Jesus’ bosom - This does not mean that he was at that time actually lying on his bosom, but that he occupied a situation next to him at the table, so that his head naturally fell back on his bosom when he spoke to him. See the notes at Mat 23:6.

Whom Jesus loved - This was doubtless John himself. The evangelists are not accustomed to mention their own names when any mark of favor or any good deed is recorded. They did not seek publicity or notoriety. In this case the appellation is more tender and honorable than any mere name. John was admitted to special friendship, perhaps, because the natural disposition of our Saviour was more nearly like the amiableness and mildness of John than any of the other disciples (Robert Hall). The highest honor that can be conferred on any man is to say that Jesus loved him. Yet this is an honor which all may possess, but which none can inherit without his spirit and without loving him. It is an honor which cannot be won by wealth or learning, by beauty or accomplishments, by rank or earthly honors, but only by the possession of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price, 1Pe 3:4; compare Rom 8:9.

Barnes: Joh 13:25

He then lying on Jesus’ breast - This is a different word from the one rendered Joh 13:23 leaning. It means falling back or reclining on the bosom of Jesus. When Peter spake, John laid his head back on the bosom of Jesus, so that he could speak to him privately without being heard by others.

Barnes: Joh 13:26

Jesus answered - That is, he answered John. It does not appear that either Judas or the other apostles heard him.

Shall give a sop - The word translated "sop"means a morsel, a piece of bread, or anything else eaten - as much as we are accustomed to take at a mouthful. Jesus was about to dip it in the sauce which was used at the Passover. The word "dip,"in the original, is that from which is derived the word "baptize."It means here that Jesus would dip it into the sauce as we do a piece of bread. It is probable that it was not an unusual thing for the master of a feast to help others in this way, as it does not appear to have attracted the attention of the others as at all remarkable. It was an indication to John who the betrayer was, and a hint which Judas also probably understood.

Barnes: Joh 13:27

After the sop - After he had taken and probably eaten it. By this Judas saw that Jesus knew his design, and that he could not conceal his plan. He saw, also, that the other disciples would be acquainted with it; and, aroused by sudden anger, or with the apprehension that he should lose his reward, or that Jesus might escape, he resolved on executing his plan at once.

Satan entered into him - The devil had before this put it into his heart to betray Jesus Joh 13:2, but he now excited him to a more decided purpose. See Luk 22:3; also Act 5:3; "Why hath Satan filled thine heart,"etc.

What thou doest, do quickly - This showed to Judas that Jesus was acquainted with his design. He did not command him to betray him, but he left him to his own purpose. He had used means enough to reclaim him and lead him to a holy life, and now he brought him to a decision. He gave him to understand that he was acquainted with his plan, and submitted it to the conscience of Judas to do quickly what he would do. If he relented, he called on him to do it at once. If he could still pursue his wicked plan, could go forward when he was conscious that the Saviour knew his design, he was to do it at once. God adopts all means to bring men to a decision. He calls upon them to act decisively, firmly, immediately. He does not allow them the privilege to deliberate about wicked deeds, but calls on them to act at once, and to show whether they will obey or disobey him; whether they will serve him, or whether they will betray fits cause. He knows all their plans, as Jesus did that of Judas, and he calls on men to act under the full conviction that he knows all their soul. Sin thus is a vast evil. When men can sin knowing that God sees it all, it shows that the heart is fully set in them to do evil, and that there is nothing that will restrain them.

Barnes: Joh 13:28-29

No man at the table knew - This shows that Jesus had signified to John only who it was that should betray him.

The bag - The traveling-bag in which they put their common property. See the notes at Joh 12:6.

Have need of against the feast - The feast of the Passover. This feast continued seven days, and they supposed that Jesus had directed him to make preparation for their needs on those days.

Poole: Joh 13:1

Joh 13:1-17 Jesus washes his disciples feet; and exhorteth

them to follow his example of humility and charity.

Joh 13:18-30 He foretells the treachery of Judas, and points

him out to John by a token.

Joh 13:31-35 He speaketh of his glorification as near at hand,

and commandeth his disciples to love one another.

Joh 13:36-38 He forewarns Peter that he shall thrice deny him.

That this was the fourth passover after that he entered upon his public ministry is out of doubt, and the last he ever celebrated. We have taken notice of this evangelist’ s mention of the other three: but how long what follows was before the passover, which is here expressed by

before the feast is a great question: some will have it the day, others immediately before, as pro (the very same particle) is used. Luk 11:38 , before dinner, and Luk 22:15 , before I suffer. The resolution of it much depends upon another question as difficult, viz. What supper it is which is mentioned? Joh 13:2 . Those who would be satisfied in these cases, may find a collection of what is said by most valuable interpreters in Mr. Pool’ s Synopsis Criticorum, upon Mat 26:1-75 . It is our happiness, that though some such knots occur in holy writ, yet they are about things in which our salvation is not concerned; so as without danger to our souls we may be ignorant of what is the truth about them. When Christ knew that the hour (which he had once or twice before said was not come) was now come, that he must die, rise again, and in a short time ascend to his Father; he having loved his disciples, not with a mutable, but with an unchangeable love; he resolves upon the washing of their feet, as a demonstration of that love.

Poole: Joh 13:2

And supper being ended possibly it were better translated, while they were at supper, or in supper time, Greek, deipnou genomenou , but the great question is, What supper is here intended? Our most learned Lightfoot is very confident this was not the paschal supper. The most interpreters, ancient and modern, seem to be of another mind. Or it may be rather a common supper, which they ate before the passover: for whereas some think this supper was that in the house of Simon the leper, mentioned Mat 26:6 , it seemeth no way probable, no circumstance inclining us to believe any such thing; and the evangelist having told us that it was after that supper that Christ rode into Jerusalem and again went from thence, and hid himself, Joh 12:36 , and then reporting this as a thing subsequent to it in this chapter; it seemeth very clear to me, that it could not be the supper in the house of Simon the leper. Concerning the influence of the devil upon Judas, to put it into his heart to betray his Master, see Luk 22:3,4 .

Poole: Joh 13:3

Our translating the Greek participle eidwv , knowing (which properly signifies having known), createth a difficulty, viz. How Christ’ s knowledge of this, that the Father had given all things into his hand, should be assigned as a reason of, or motive to, his subsequent action of washing the feet of his disciples? The sense therefore must certainly be, though he knew; and so it doth not import a reason of his following action, but only signifieth Christ’ s great humiliation and condescension. Though he well enough knew, that all power was given him in heaven and earth, as in Mat 28:18 ; that he was his disciples’ Lord, that he came from God, and was now going to God again; yet to show how much he loved his disciples, and to set them a pattern of humility, and teach them brotherly love, and that he came not in the estate wherein he yet was to be ministered unto, but to minister, Mat 20:28 .

Poole: Joh 13:4

He riseth from supper What supper? Is the question. We are told, that the Jews had two suppers upon the paschal night, which was the 14th day of the month Nisan. The first was the passover supper, which was a religious rite in obedience to the law. The second, a common supper (as on other nights); to which our Saviour added a third, which was the Lord’ s supper. To me it seemeth rather that their common supper was first, then the passover supper; and that Christ arose from this common supper to do this act. Augustine understood it of the common supper; so doth Beza, Heinsius, Tarnovius, and others; which seemeth to me most probable, though others understand it of the passover supper. Whatever supper the evangelist meaneth, Christ rose up from it before it was done. Calvin, Pareus, Beza, Petargus, Tossanus, and divers others amongst the protestant interpreters; Tolet, Maldonate, and Jansenius, amongst the papists; do agree a common supper this night, besides the paschal supper, and the Lord’ s supper: from which it is most probable that Christ, as is here said, rose up, and laid aside his garment; that is, his outward loose garment, (for such they used), which servants were wont to gird up when they waited at table, Luk 17:8 : Christ laid one aside, and girdling up the other, takes a towel.

Poole: Joh 13:5

Poureth water into a bason; begins first to wash his disciples feet, then to wipe them with the linen cloth he had taken. All this was done in the form of a servant; so they used to do, as to guests that came to dine or sup with their lords or masters.

Poole: Joh 13:6

Christ in the performance of this ceremony cometh to Simon Peter; whether first, or last, it is not said; and therefore the papists argue ill from hence, to prove the primacy of Peter over the rest of the apostles. Peter looks upon it with a modest, but sinful and superstitions, indignation. Samuel of old determined, that obedience to God is better than sacrifice; it is then certainly better than a compliment. Peter in this case ought not to have contradicted his Master out of a compliment to him, but to have suffered him to go on in this act of ministration. There may be a voluntary humility, and pretended reverence to Christ, which is indeed but superstition, and can be no other, if contrary to any revelation of the Divine will.

Poole: Joh 13:7

Our Lord, seeing Peter’ s general design good, though he mistook as to this particular act, tells him, that at present he did not understand his counsel and design in this action, but it should be more intelligible unto him afterwards; as indeed he made it by his discourse upon this his act of humiliation, Joh 13:13-16 .

Poole: Joh 13:8

Peter rashly replies, Thou shalt never wash my feet Here was a seeming reverence for his Master, but (like the Jewish zeal mentioned by Paul, Rom 10:2 ) not according to knowledge. Christ tells him, that except he washed him, he had no part with him; that is, he should never be saved. But will some say, Was not this too severe, for our Saviour to threaten Peter with an exclusion from a co-inheritance with him in heaven, for modestly refusing to suffer him to wash his feet?

Answer.

1. The least disobedience not repented of, is enough to exclude a soul from the kingdom of heaven.

2. But Christ seems to take an advantage here, from this ceremony of his washing their feet, to discourse to him the necessity of his washing his soul with his blood, from the filth of sin and corruption; and of this washing it undoubtedly is that Christ here speaketh, the necessity of which is very often inculcated in holy writ.

Poole: Joh 13:9

Peter now understandeth what washing it is which our Saviour last spake of, and wholly submits to the will of his Lord and Master; acknowledging himself to be wholly defiled, and to stand in need of a washing all over:

Lord saith he, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head that is, my whole man.

Poole: Joh 13:10

Look as it is with persons that have been washing themselves in a bath, when they are washed, yet walking abroad barefoot, or with thin sandals or coverings for their feet, will be again subject to pollute and dirty their feet, so as they will have frequent need to wash them again; but they need not soon again wash their whole bodies: so it is as to souls that are washed with my blood; washed, and sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God, (as the apostle speaketh, 1Co 6:11 ), their state is not to be renewed; they need not be justified a second time; but they will have need to have their feet washed, in regard of their remainder of sin and lust that is in them, and will be so while they are in the world, and the temptations which every where he in the world, as snares for their feet; they will have need of a daily washing by repentance, and fresh applications of their souls to my blood, by the repeated exercises of faith, according to their renewed and repeated acts of sin.

Ye are clean you, who are my apostles, are clean; you are washed, you are justified, I have forgiven your sins, accepted your persons.

But not all the most of you are so, but not all.

Poole: Joh 13:11

By these words the evangelist expounds only what our Saviour meant in the former verse, when he had told them they were not all clean; for though the disciples did not yet know that they had a traitor amongst them, Satan had before this put the design into the heart of Judas, Joh 13:2 ; and Christ, who knew all hearts, knew what was in the heart of Judas, and he soon after (as we shall hereafter in this chapter read) revealed it; yet at this time he had not revealed it to his disciples: now he begins to discover it, telling them, that though the most of them were clean, justified and sanctified, yet all of them were not so.

Poole: Joh 13:12

After that our Saviour had finished this ceremony, and washed his disciples’ feet, (some question whether all or no, but I see no reason to doubt it), he returned again to the supper, which probably now was near finished, which certainly was the common supper which the Jews had besides the passover supper, and probably before it, though some think after it. He asketh them if they knew the meaning of this which he had done unto them; lest they should not fully understand it, he openeth it to them in the following discourse.

Poole: Joh 13:13

The disciples in their ordinary discourses called Christ

Master and Lord nor was it a name improper for him, for he was their Master to instruct them, their Lord to rule, guide, and govern them: now, saith our Saviour, disciples ought to obey their master, servants ought to obey their lord, and disciples also ought to imitate their master.

Poole: Joh 13:14

I have by this my action taught you to love, and to be ready also to serve, one another, and not to think much to serve them even in the lowest and meanest offices by which you can do them good; for we must not think that these words lay a literal obligation upon Christians to wash the feet of others; washing the feet is mentioned but as species pro genere, a single act of service, put for all other acts by which we can be serviceable unto others: so it is also used, 1Sa 25:41 1Ti 5:10 . Some of the ancients seem to have judged this washing of feet to have been instituted as a sacrament, (though in an improper sense), and from hence, though Bellarmine, Maldonate, and others deny it to be a sacrament as well as we, yet probably is the practice in use amongst the papists, to wash certain persons’ feet every Thursday before Easter; a theatrical ceremony, rather than any thing of solid and profitable use. Our Saviour certainly intends no more by

ye ought to wash one another’ s feet than, ye ought to serve one another in all offices of love, and not to think yourselves too good, or too great, to do the meanest services to those who are my disciples: and this is that as to which he tells them he had set them an example that they should do as he had done, in other acts of the same kind, though not as to this specific act.

Poole: Joh 13:15-16

Ver. 15,16. The apostles were to take up a very high station in the gospel church, and our hearts are very prone to swell in a high opinion of ourselves, for which the nature of man taketh advantage from every thing in which we either really do excel, or can conceit that we do excel, our neighbours. Our Lord therefore, though speaking to the apostles, (some of the best of men), yet knowing they were (like Elijah) men subject to like passions with other men, addeth this to arm them against, any temptation to pride: they owned themselves as servants to Christ who was their great Lord; they had seen what he had done; he therefore applies a proverbial expression to them, which he also made use of in other cases, as Mat 10:24 Joh 15:20 ; in both which places he maketh use of it to arm them against persecutions; here, to persuade them to humility, condescension, and brotherly love.

Poole: Joh 13:17

He tells them, that it is not the bare comprehension of these things in their notion that would do them any good, unless they brought their knowledge into practice; for to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, it is sin, Jam 4:17 . Faith without works is dead, and the knowledge of our Master’ s will, if we do it not, doth but expose us to many stripes.

Poole: Joh 13:18

I am about to tell you what will make your ears tingle; but be of good comfort, what I shall now tell you doth not concern all of you, it concerneth but one man amongst you.

I know whom I have chosen to the work of the apostleship; so some interpret it, as Joh 6:70 , Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? But the generality of the best interpreters understand the choosing here mentioned, of a choosing to eternal life, and perseverance in the way of God as a means in order to it, as Eph 1:4 ; and so understood, here is a greater argument in this text to prove the Godhead of Christ, as the Author of eternal election: Though one of you be a devil, a traitor, yet I have chosen the rest of you to eternal life: and this is no more than was prophesied of me, and fulfilled in David as a type of me: the Scripture must have its accomplishment; that Scripture is now fulfilled in me.

Poole: Joh 13:19

What I now tell you should be so far from prejudicing your faith in me, that it ought rather to confirm and increase your faith in me as the true Messias; when (the thing coming to pass) you shall understand that I know the hearts, counsels, and secret thoughts of men: and when you shall see the Scriptures have their accomplishment, and those things which were long ago prophesied concerning the Messias have their just accomplishment, and fulfilling in me as the person intended in those ancient revelations.

Poole: Joh 13:20

See Poole on "Mat 10:24" , the words of which place are but here repeated; either to commend to them brotherly love, and offices of love, which he had before recommended to them under the notion of washing one another’ s feet; or else to comfort his disciples, who might think that this treacherous villany of Judas would make them odious to the whole world: No, saith our Saviour, you are my messengers, persons sent by me; I will provide for you, there shall be those who will receive you. And I declare to all the world to encourage them, that I shall take their receiving of you as kindly as if they received me, and it shall turn to the same account, and that is all one as if they had received my Father himself, for he sent me. Some think that by these words Christ aggravates the sin of Judas, as being committed against the Father as well as against Christ; and a most treacherous failure as to the duty of an apostle, or one dignified so much as to be sent out by Christ.

Poole: Joh 13:21

How, and in what sense, trouble of spirit could agree to Christ, was noted before, Joh 12:27 : see the notes on that text. This seemeth to have been rather a trouble of grief, that one of his apostles, one whom he had chosen, should commit so great a villany, than arising from fear of death; for his next words are a further discovery of the person that should betray him: he had said before, that he should be betrayed, and that it should be by one that used to eat bread with him; but now he cometh closer, and tells them that it should be by one of them, that is, one of the twelve; this was a closer discovery than he had as yet made.

Poole: Joh 13:22

It seemeth they had no suspicion of Judas, but our Saviour telling them that it was one of them, they begin to look about one upon another, rather suspecting themselves than Judas. There may be a great deal of villany, and the greatest villany, in the hearts of professors, in whose conversation appeareth nothing that may give a just suspicion to others; and the true disciples of Christ will have so much candour anti brotherly love, that they will not rashly judge and censure their brethren.

Poole: Joh 13:23

This leaning on Jesus’ bosom and the laying on Jesus’ breast, mentioned Joh 13:25 , cannot be understood without the understanding of the usual posture the Jews used at their meals, and particularly at the paschal supper; of which we have spoken largely; See Poole on "Mat 26:20" : see the annotations there. Their posture seemeth to have been kneeling, and resting their bodies back upon their legs, with a leaning upon their left elbow; and this seemeth not to have been so close, but that he that so sat might use his other hand to take his meat; hence he who sat before any, sat with his back towards him, but leaning towards the bosom of the other, which is here called a leaning on (that is, towards) his bosom, and laying on his breast; for it cannot be understood of such a sitting, or leaning, as to touch the other’ s breast or bosom, for that would have hindered him upon whom the person so leaned from any use of his right hand to take his meat or drink. It is apparent from hence, first, that at this supper there was none but Christ and his disciples. Secondly, that they sat in this posture of leaning. These two things make it very probable, if not certain, that the supper here mentioned was either the paschal supper, or a common supper, which immediately went before, or followed after, the passover supper. For,

1. We have no record of any other supper, at which were only Christ and the twelve disciples; and:

2. If we may believe the Jewish writers, though their ordinary posture at their common meals was discumbency, that is a kneeling on their knees, with a resting their bodies backward upon their legs; yet this posture of leaning was constantly added only upon the passover night, as a further testimony of their liberty, that they were not now servants, as in the land of Egypt. The person who sat next to our Saviour, with his back next our Saviour’ s bosom, was John, often in Scripture dignified with the title of the beloved disciple, and him whom Jesus loved, Joh 19:26 Joh 20:2 21:7,20 .

Poole: Joh 13:24

Peter, knowing the particular affection that Christ had for John, maketh a sign to him, to ask of Christ which of them he meant, when he said,

One of you shall betray me

Poole: Joh 13:25

John accordingly, doth propound the question to Christ.

Poole: Joh 13:26

Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it we have the same, though not mentioned as spoken in particular to John, Mat 26:23 Luk 22:21 ; though neither of them mention Christ’ s own dipping the sop, but Matthew saith, he dipped his hand with him in the dish; and Luke saith, his hand was with him on the table. Without question all the evangelists speak of the same time; for it is not reasonable to think that this discovery should be made, and Judas gone out, and that afterward he should return again to eat the passover. This maketh me very inclinable to think, that though the washing of the feet might be during the time of a common supper, preceding the passover, yet the supper they were now at was the passover supper: where,

1. Were none but he and the twelve disciples.

2. It is plain they were in that leaning posture, not used at common meals, but on the passover nights (as Dr. Lightfoot tells us from their writings).

3. The discourse passed at the table is the very same (though not in words, yet in sense) with that mentioned by Matthew and Luke, at the passover supper.

4. It is not reasonable to think that after such a discovery as Christ now made of the traitor, he should come again to be pointed at and exposed.

Concerning the sop, what it was, hath been some question; and a learned writer of our own (but in this point I think much too critical) hath increased the difficulty, by affirming the word here used, qwmion , signifies a piece of bread, or the lower part or chippings of the bread; for which he quotes Hesychius, who indeed doth say so of qwyion , but not qwmion . The learned annotator thinks qwyion is a false print for qwmion , but it cannot be: for,

1. There are in Hesychius several words in alphabetical order, between qwyion , and this word.

2. Though qwmion be not in Hesychius, yet qwmh is, and expounded by him ta merh , parts; now all know that this qwmion , which is but a diminutive derived from qwmov or qwmh , can signify no more than a little part, let it be of what it will; for it is manifest out of Homer, that, joined with an adjective, it signifies a mouthful of man’ s flesh, which came out of the Cyclops’ mouth.

So as the sense of these words is, He it is to whom I shall give a little part or portion of meat, when I have dipped it. And having dipped it, he gave it to Judas the son of Simon: not the Judas who wrote the Epistle, and who is mentioned, Joh 14:22 , but he that was the son of Simon, called from his place which he lived in, Kiroth, Iscariot: by which he did as perfectly describe the traitor as if he had named him.

Poole: Joh 13:27

That the devil did ever so enter into Judas as to possess him, as we read of many who were possessed, and violently acted by the devil, is more than we read and, where in holy writ: the entrance into him, signifies Judas’ s free and willing giving up of himself to the devil’ s suggestions and conduct; and in this sense the devil also before this time was entered into Judas, Luk 22:3 . But as holy men are said to be filled with the Spirit of God, who had before received the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit came after upon them with fuller and stronger impulses and motions; so though the devil had formerly been moving Judas to this vile act, and had had his consent to it, yet after he had taken this mouthful, the devil plied him with stronger motions, impulses, and suggestions: and now he had mastered his conscience, and hardened his heart, so as he was more prepared for the villany about which he had some thoughts before. He had now, with an unbelieving and unthankful heart, been eating the passover, which was a type of Christ; and had so mastered his conscience, as to come and do this, with a vile heart, reeking before with treacherous and bloody designs against his Lord and Master. See what is the effect. His heart is more vile, more treacherous, and bloody; he is twice more the servant of the devil than he was before. The sop given him by Christ was but an accidental occasion of it; as the devil took more advantage from his now hardened and further emboldened heart, and he is twice more the child of the devil than he was before. Christ, knowing this, doth not command, advise, or exhort him; but, in a detestation, bids him go and do what he was resolved to do, and which he knew would be quickly; letting him know both that he knew what was in his heart, and that he was now ready to receive the effects of his malice.

Poole: Joh 13:28-29

Ver. 28,29. How innocent are honest hearts! Charity thinketh no evil, saith the apostle. Although our Saviour had plainly enough deciphered him as the traitor, by telling John that he to whom he should give the sop was he, and then by giving it to Judas; yet whether they all did not hear what our Saviour said to John, or did not think of so sudden a tragedy, they do not suspect that the hour was at hand when Judas should perfect his intended villany: though they heard our Saviour bid him get him out, and do quickly what he had to do; yet Judas being he who carried that little stock of money which Christ had, Joh 12:6 , they thought that that which our Saviour bid him do, as a work he had undertaken to do, was laying out some money, either to buy some things which were necessary for them, for the seven days of the feast of unleavened bread; either for food for them to eat, or for sacrifices for them to offer; or that it was our Saviour’ s mind, that he should out of this little stock distribute something to the poor: they little thought that our Saviour’ s words argued a giving him over to perfect the treacherous designs which he had conceived in his heart.

Lightfoot: Joh 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.   

[Now before the feast of the Passover.] The Vulgar, Beza, and the Interlinear read, Now before the feast day of the Passover; but by what authority they add day it concerns them to make out. For,   

I. In the common language of the Jews, the whole festivity and time of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles; no part of that time being excepted; nor does the word feast; occur anywhere throughout the whole Bible in another signification.   

II. It is something harsh to exclude the paschal supper out of the title of the feast of the Passover; because the name of the whole feast takes its original from it. This they do who imagine this supper mentioned in this place to have been the paschal supper, and yet it was before the feast of the Passover.   

We have therefore shewn, by many arguments in our notes upon Mat 26:2; Mat 26:6; that the supper here mentioned was the same with that at Bethany, in the house of 'Simon the leper,' two days before the Passover.

Lightfoot: Joh 13:2

And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son; to betray him;   

[And supper being ended.] I acknowledge the aorist, and yet do not believe the supper was now ended. We have the very same word in the story of the same supper, Mat 26:6; and Jesus being in Bethany; which in St. Mark is and being in Bethany; Mar 14:3; so that supper being ended is no more than 'being' supper.   

Let us join the full story together. While Jesus was at supper in the house of Simon the leper two days before the Passover, a woman comes and pours very precious ointment upon his head. When some murmured at the profuseness of the expense, he defends the woman and the action by an apology: and having finished his apology, he rises immediately from the table, as it were, in the very midst of supper, and girds himself to wash his disciples' feet: so that while they are grumbling at the anointing of his head, he does not disdain to wash their feet.   

The reason of this extraordinary action of his we may in some measure spell out from those little prefaces the evangelist uses before he tells the story.   

I. "When Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world; etc." [There is an expression not unlike this in Bemidbar Rabba; "Abraham said, 'I am flesh and blood, tomorrow I shall go out of this world.'"]  

It had a little rubbed up the memory of his departure out of this world, that the woman had as it were anointed him for his funeral: and therefore he riseth immediately from the table, that he might give them some farewell token of his humility and charity, and leave them an example for the practice of these virtues one amongst another.   

II. "The devil having now put into the heart of Judas to betray him," it was but seasonable for him to shew his disciples that he would strengthen and vindicate them against the wolf who had now stolen, I will not say a sheep; but a goat; and that out of his own flock. It must not pass unobserved, that 'his disciples' murmured at the lavish use of the ointment, Mat 26:8; as if the murmuring humour was crept in amongst others also as well as Judas; which perhaps moved Christ the more earnestly to meet the beginnings of that distemper by this action.   

III. "Knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands," Joh 13:3, he gave the traitor over to Satan, and confirms the rest to himself: signifying, by the external washing, that his should be secured from the devil by the washing of Christ. Whosoever shall attempt the determination, whether he washed the feet of Judas or not, let him see how he will free himself of this dilemma:   

If he washed Judas' feet, why had not he his part in Christ, as well as the rest of his disciples? For supposing that true, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me," why should not this be so too, "If I do wash thee, thou hast a part with me?"   

If he did not wash Judas with the rest, but left him out, how could the rest be ignorant who was the unclean person? Joh 13:10, which they were altogether ignorant of.

Lightfoot: Joh 13:5

After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.   

[Into a basin.] "On that day, [when they made R. Eleazar Ben Azariah president of the council] the votes were numbered; and they determined concerning the basin wherein they were to wash their feet; that it should contain from two logs to ten."   

[He began to wash the feet, etc.] as to this action of our Saviour's washing his disciples' feet; it may be observed,   

I. It was an unusual thing for superiors to wash the feet of inferiors. Amongst the duties required from a wife towards a husband this was one, that she should wash his face, his hands, and his feet. The same was expected by a father from his son. The same from a servant towards his master, but not vice versa. Nor, as I remember, was it expected from the disciple towards his master, unless included in that rule, "That the disciple is to honour his master more than his father."   

II. The feet were never washed merely under the notion of legal purification. The hands were wont to be washed by the Pharisees merely under that notion, but not the feet; and the hands and the feet by the priests, but the feet not merely upon that account. That what was said before, concerning the basin wherein the feet were to be washed; must not be understood as if the feet were to be washed upon any score of a legal cleansing; but only care was taken by that tradition, lest through defect of a just quantity of water the feet and the person should contract some sort of uncleanness whilst they were washing.   

So that by how much distant this action of Christ's was from the common usage and custom, by so much the more instructive was it to his followers, propounded to them not only for example, but doctrine too.   

III. As to the manner of the action. It is likely he washed their feet in the same manner as his own were, Luk 7:38; viz. while they were leaning at the table (as the Jewish custom of eating was) he washed their feet; as they were stretched out behind them. And if he did observe any order, he began with Peter, who sat in the next place immediately to himself. This Nonnus seems to believe; to which opinion also there are others that seem inclined; and then the words he began to wash; must be taken in some such sense as if he made ready and put himself into a posture to wash. But perhaps this way of expression may intimate, as if he began to wash some of his disciples, but did not wash them all; which for my own part I could easily enough close with. For whereas Christ did this for example and instruction merely, and not with any design of cleansing them, his end was answered in washing two or three of them, as well as all. And so indeed I would avoid being entangled in the dilemma I lately mentioned, by saying, he did not only leave Judas unwashed, but several others also. What if he washed Peter and James and John only? And as he had before made some distinction betwixt these three and the rest of his disciples by admitting them into his more inward privacies, so perhaps he distinguisheth them no less in this action. These he foretold how they were to suffer martyrdom: might he not, therefore, by this washing; prefigure to them that they must be baptized with the same baptism that he himself was to be baptized with? and as the woman had anointed him for his burial, so he, by this action, might have washed them for that purpose.

Lightfoot: Joh 13:13

Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.   

[Master and Lord.] Rabbi; and Mar; are titles amongst the doctors very frequently used, both those of Jerusalem and those of Babylon.

Lightfoot: Joh 13:23

Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.   

[Leaning on Jesus' bosom.] "They were wont to eat leaning on the left side, with their feet to the ground, every one singly, upon their distinct beds."   

"But when there were two beds; he that was chief sat highest: and he that was second to him sat above him." Gloss: "The bed of him that sat second was by the bolster of him that sat first."   

" When there were three; the worthiest person lay in the middle; and the second lay above him; and the third below him." Gloss: "The third lay at the feet of him that was first."   

" And if he would talk with him, he raised himself, and sitting upright talks with him." Gloss: "If he that sits chief would talk with him that is second to him, he raiseth himself and sits upright: for so long as he leans, or lies down, he cannot talk with him; because he that lies second lies behind the head of him that lies first, and the face of him that lies first is turned from him: so that it were better for the second to sit below him, because then he may hear his words while he sits leaning." So Lipsius writes of the Roman custom. "This was the manner of their sitting at table: they lay with the upper part of their body leaning on the left elbow; the lower part stretched at length, the head a little raised, and the back had cushions under. The first lay at the head of the bed, and his feet stretched out at the back of him that sat next," etc. To all which he adds, "That the Jews had the very same way of lying down at meals in Christ's time, appears evidently from John, Luke," etc.   

So that while Christ and his disciples were eating together, Peter lay at the back of Christ, and John in his bosom: John in the bosom of Christ, and Christ in the bosom of Peter. Christ, therefore, could not readily talk with Peter in his ear (for all this discourse was by way of whispering). Peter, therefore, looking over Christ's head towards John, nods to him; and, by that, signs to him to ask Christ about this matter.   

So the Gemara concerning the Persians (I suppose he means the Jews in Persia); when they could not, because of their way of leaning at meals, discourse amongst themselves, they talked by signs either with their hands or upon their fingers.   

We must not omit what the Gloss said, that they were wont to sit at table leaning on their left side, with their "feet upon the ground"; this is to be understood when one sat alone, or two at the table only. And the Gemara tells us, that the order was otherwise when but two sat down: for then he that was the second sat below him that was the chief, and not at his pillow.   

There was also a diversity of tables: for the ordinary table of the Pharisee, or one of the disciples of the wise men, was but little, where three at most could sit down; and there were tables which would hold more.   

The ordinary table is described in Bava Bathra; "What kind of table is that of the disciples of the wise men? Two thirds of the table were spread with a tablecloth; and one third was uncovered, and on this were set the dishes and the herbs."   

The ring of the table was on the outside. Gloss: "They were wont to put a ring upon the edge of the table to hang it by." That hanging up the table when they had done using it, seems to have been only to set it out of danger of contracting any defilement; and argues it was but small and light. Now the ring of the table was ab extra; when that part of the table where the ring was was naked, not covered with a tablecloth: so that it was not amongst the guests, but without; viz. in that void place where nobody sat down. We have more in the same place about the ring being placed within or without. Gloss: "If a child sit at table with his father, the ring was without, not among the guests, lest the child, playing with the ring, should shake the table." If a servant be waiting at the table, then the table is so placed (especially if it be night), that the ring is within; lest the servant, in moving to and fro, should happen to touch upon it.   

[Whom Jesus loved.] We have touched upon this phrase before in our notes upon Mar 10:21; where, upon those words, "Jesus looking upon him loved him," let us add something omitted there. 2Ch 18:2; and persuaded him to go up to Ramoth-Gilead. Greek: where he loved him is put for "he persuaded him to go up with him to Ramoth in Gilead": and so the Complutensian Bible hath it. Where Nobilius, "He loved him, that is, did him all good offices, and shewed him tokens of great kindness." So Jesus, earnestly beholding this young man, persuaded him, encouraged him; used all mild and gentle words and actions towards him, that he might urge and stir him up to the ways of godliness.

Lightfoot: Joh 13:26

Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.   

[And when he had dipped the sop.] This was a very unusual thing, to dip a sop and reach it to any one: and what could the rest of the disciples think of it? It is probable they took it as if Christ had said to Judas, "What thou doest, do quickly: do not stay till the supper be done and the tables withdrawn; but take this sop to make up your supper, and begone about the business you are to despatch." So they might apprehend the matter; only John, indeed, understood what it meant: unless perhaps Peter, being not ignorant of the question John asked our Saviour, might not be ignorant of what Christ answered him by that action.

Lightfoot: Joh 13:27

And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.   

[And after the sop, etc.] satan knew well enough what Christ meant by it: for when he saw that by giving the sop Christ had declared which of them should betray him, the devil makes his entry. For as he had entered into the serpent that deceived the first Adam, so he knew the second Adam could not be betrayed but by one into whom he should first enter.   

[That thou doest, do quickly.] I would take this expression for a tacit severe threatening pronounced, not without some scorn and indignation against him: q.d. "I know well enough what thou art contriving against me; what thou doest, therefore, do quickly: else thy own death may prevent thee, for thou hast but a very short time to live, thy own end draws on apace." So Psa 109:8; "Let his days be few." And, indeed, within two days and three nights after this, Judas died.

PBC: Joh 13:10

" He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet"

When I was a little boy, about five years old, there was an old roadbed near our house. Springtime was at hand and it had rained. The old roadbed was a loblolly. Now the rain had stopped and the sun had come out blazing hot. I was outside playing, dressed in a light shirt and short pants. The loblolly of mud in the old roadbed caught my attention. What a great place to play! I waded in. My feet sank in the mud. I went in farther and it was about to my knees. Oh! What fun to feel the mud squirt between my toes and to hear the air suck in when I would pull a foot up. I must have played in the mud for quite a while. I had a good coat of it on my feet and on my legs up to above my knees. I didn’t realize it until later, but underneath the mud my tender white skin was sunburned. After a while I went to the house. Mama saw me coming before I got there. She met me at the front doorstep and said, " wait here while I get some water and soap. You can’t come in the house with that mud on you." She was back momentarily with a pan of water, soap and a washcloth. She went to work to get the mud off. That’s when we learned about the sunburn. It was terribly painful to get that sun-baked mud off. I kicked and screamed. Mama, recognizing the sunburn and realizing the pain I was experiencing, worked as gently as she could. Oh! How I wished she would just stop and leave the mud on. But she was persistent and after a while it was all off. My feet and legs burned and smarted something frightful, and I cried buckets of tears. Mama put some soothing salve or ointment on my sunburned skin and soon it was feeling much better. Before long I had eaten and was snug in a nice clean bed and asleep. Many years have passed since this little episode in my life. I had not thought of it for a long time until just recently. Now as I think about it I find a very good lesson in it. Mama kept a clean house, and a great part of her doing so was seeing that we children didn’t track mud into it.

Jerusalem, which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jesus washed his disciples’ feet, and in so doing taught some very important lessons. He taught us humility in being subject to one another as servants. One can hardly hold animosity toward another while kneeling at his feet. He taught us also that we should keep our feet clean. This has reference not to the natural dirt and dust that collect on our feet as we work or play, although for practical prudence’s sake we should practice physical cleanliness, but rather to our manner of living, the way we walk before God and each other. Our manner of life should be clean. It takes constant effort to maintain godly cleanliness. We need the assistance of each other. We need the knowledge of practical godliness found in the doctrine taught by Jesus. The church is the custodian and administrator of this knowledge. Each member of the church should submit one to the other in the effort to maintain godly cleanliness. We ought to wash each other’s feet. We are often tempted to walk in the muck and mire of worldliness even as I as a little boy walked and played in the mud of the old roadbed. The mud of worldliness clings to us, and becomes hard and crusty. To remove it is sometimes terribly painful. We may kick and scream against its removal, but we can not walk together in peace and fellowship in the church with mud on our feet. We should, with the greatest of humility, humbly submit to the church and be clean. When we engage in the feet-washing service at church we should understand that we are pledging ourselves to each other as servants to help in maintaining a clean and godly manner of life, keeping our feet clean. Jesus said, " He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet." This simply teaches us that we are washed from our sins in the blood of Jesus Christ, but it is incumbent upon us to maintain practical cleanliness in our manner of living. " If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet." Knowing our weakness to temptation, we should covet the loving assistance of our brother, and at the same time be careful to give assistance in kind. " Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."{ Jas 5:19} We should be always eager and diligent to lend assistance to one in error, and we should be equally as eager and diligent to receive corrective admonition, and repent. Washing feet in church is not just a custom, or something we do because it has always been done. It is an emblem of our pledge to each other, and to the Lord Jesus Christ, to maintain godly cleanliness in His house. Daddy was the head of the house, but Mama was the housekeeper. Christ is the husband and head of His house, but the church is His bride and the housekeeper. May the Lord Jesus be glorified in the way we keep His house. Amen.

280

PBC: Joh 13:14

In this we are taught a lesson of humility, for if our Lord and Master has humbled himself to wash his disciples feet, so ought we, not only in heart and feelings, but practically, observe the example our Lord and Master has set.

Eld. Gregg Thompson

Haydock: Joh 13:1

Before the festival day, or feast of the Pasch. see the note on this word Pasch, Matthew xxvi. ver. 2. Here when St. John says, before the festival day, he means in the evening, or latter evening after sunset, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, when the great feast of Azyms or unleavened bread was begun, (for the Jews began their feasts from sunset on the foregoing day) so that the hours from sunset, at least, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan (at which time the paschal lamb was to be eaten with unleavened bread belonged to the first, and great day of Azyms, which lasted till sunset on the 15th day of the month of Nisan. St. John therefore says, the day before, meaning after sunset on the 14th day of the month; but yet it was part of the same great feast, which was kept on the 15th day. See also the note Matthew xxvi. ver. 17. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 13:2

And when supper was done. By this we must not understand, that the supper was over; for we afterwards find the Jesus again sat down, and gave bread to the traitor. But these words only mean, that all had partook of refreshment, and might be therefore said to have supped. (St. Augustine, tract. 55. in Joan.) ---

He knew that he went out from God, and would return to God; but at the same time, he did not leave God, when he went out from him, nor us, when he returns to him. (St. Augustine, as above.) ---

And though he went out from God, and returns to him, yet here he condescends to perform the office, not of the Lord God of the universe, but of a man and a slave; (St. Augustine) and this, says St. John Chrysostom, (hom. lxix. in Joan.) that he might tread all pride under foot: doing every thing himself on this occasion, to teach us with what eagerness we ought to perform the duties of humility.

Haydock: Joh 13:4

He riseth from supper; that is, after supper was done, or ended, as it is here said, (ver. 2. and 1 Corinthians xi. 25.) girded himself like a servant, to wash and wipe the feet of his apostles. (Witham) ---

If we compare the text of the four evangelists, it will appear that the washing of the feet preceded the institution of the blessed Eucharist, of which St. John is silent. (Bible de Vence)

Haydock: Joh 13:5

St. Ambrose and St. Bernard shew that this washing was mysterious, and significative of the very great purity expected of those that receive the blessed Eucharist.

Haydock: Joh 13:6

Lord, dost thou wash my feet? My master, my Lord, the true Son of the living God, wilt thou wash the feet of me, thy servant, thy disciple, a poor vile sinner? this must not be. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 13:8

If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. At this, Peter, as one thunderstruck, replied: Lord, not my feet only, but my head; whatever my Lord pleaseth. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 13:10

He that is washed, &c. The feet are always apt to contract some dust or dirt; and in the mystical sense, he that is washed by the sacraments of baptism, or penance, from greater sins, must still endeavour to cleanse, and purify his affections from lesser failings of human frailty. And you, my apostles, are clean from greater offences, but not all of you, meaning the traitor Judas. (Witham) ---

It is impossible that the extremities of the soul (if we may be allowed the expression) should not, as long as we tread upon this earth, receive some stain or other; although in the opinion of men, the soul appear just. Many indeed after baptism, are covered with the dust of sin, even to the head, but those who are disciples indeed, need only to wash their feet. (Origen, tract. 32. in Joan.) ---

The foulness of the feet, when the rest is clean, signifies the earthly affections, and remains of former sins remitted, which are to be cleansed by devout acts of charity and humility. (St. Ambrose, lib. iii. de Sacram. chap. 1; St. Bernard, de cæn. Dom. ser. 1.) ---

Though his disciples were clean, still he washed their feet, comformably to that of the Apocalypse, chap. xxii. "He that is clean, let him be cleansed still." (Origen, tract. 32. in Joan.)

Haydock: Joh 13:14

You also ought to wash one another's feet. Not that he made this a standing precept according to the letter; but designed it as a lesson in humility. We find this custom literally observed in several churches, as it is now down every year by diverse prelates, and by Christian kings and princes. (Witham) ---

He gives us an example of a more elevated act of virtue, that we may at least learn to practise the lower degrees of it. For he indeed was their Lord, but when we perform this office, we can but do it to our fellow-servants. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lxx. in Joan.) ---

That it is, blessed Peter, which you were ignorant of, but which he promises to explain afterwards. (St. Augustine, tract. 58. in Joan.)

Haydock: Joh 13:18

Shall lift up his heel against me. It is the sense of those words, (Psalm xl. 10.) hath supplanted me; and they were spoken of Judas's sin in betraying Christ. (Witham) ---

Jesus Christ applies in this place to the perfidy of Judas, that which David appears to have said on occasion of the perfidy of Achitophel, who was thus a figure of the perfidious Judas. (Bible de Vence)

Haydock: Joh 13:23

One of his disciples. St. John himself was lying at table in (or towards) the bosom of Jesus. [1] These words seem to express the manner that the Jews were place at table. They had couches about a table, to lean or lie upon; and three for example upon each couch. The master, or head of the company, was placed in the midst; so that we may suppose, that Christ was placed on one of these couches in the midst, St. Peter on one side of him, and St. John on the other; and that St. John, in that resting and leaning posture, had his head all the time turned, and inclined towards Christ's bosom: yet it can scarce be imagined, that his head laid continually upon our Saviour's breast or bosom; for this posture would have been very uneasy to Jesus, or to any one. St. John then leaned all supper time towards Jesus's bosom or breast, but not upon it. (Witham) ---

Whilst all were fearing for themselves, and Peter, the very head of the apostles, was trembling, St. John rests; reposing on the bosom of Jesus. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lxxi. in Joan.)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Erat recumbens in sinu Jesu, ver. 23. And cum recubuisset super pectus Jesu, ver. 25. In the Greek, ver. 23, Greek: anakeimenos epi to kolpo tou Iesou; and ver. 25, Greek: epipeson epi to stethos tou Iesou. The word Greek: anakeimenos from Greek: anakeisthai, seems to express no more than the manner in those days of leaning, or lying at table: as in the Latin, accumbere, or discumbere; but Greek: epipeson, from Greek: epipiptein epi to stethos, signifies a bowing or falling down on Christ's breast, as it were in a fit of trouble or grief. See the author of the Analysis, diss. xxxvi. St. John Chrysostom, (hom. xllii. p. 423, tom. 8, Nov. Ed. Ben.) seems to make a difference betwixt these two expressions, when he says: Joannes ... in sinu Jesu recubat, nec recubat solum, sed in pectus incidit: neque hoc solum quæsitu dignum est, &c. Greek: o Ioannes anakeitai eis ton kolpon tou Iesou, kai ouk anakeitai monon, alla kai to stethei epipiptei, kai ou touto monon axion zeteseos, &c.

====================

Haydock: Joh 13:25

When Christ had said, one of you is to betray me, St. Peter whispered with St. John, by turning to him behind Jesus's back, and desired him to ask, who this was: now when John had leaned down upon the breast of Jesus, or as the Greek hath it, falling down on the breast of Jesus, as a person may do in a great concern, or fit of grief, he said, Lord, who is it? This posture seems to have been only for that moment of whispering, and to have been different from the posture of eating at table. (Witham)

Haydock: Joh 13:27

Satan entered into him, who presently went out with great anger and indignation. It was then night, likely about nine o'clock. (Witham) ---

That which thou dost, do quickly. It is not a license, much less a command, to go about his treason: but a signification to him, that Christ would not hinder or resist what he was about, do it as soon as he pleased: but was both ready, and desirous to suffer for our redemption. (Challoner) ---

Christ does not by these words exhort the traitor, much less command him, to perform his wicked deed; but he means to reprobate it, and at the same time testify that he would not hinder his being betrayed. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lxxi. in Joan.) ---

It is the voice not of command, but of permission, not of a person in fear, but of one prepared for death. (St. Leo)

Gill: Joh 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover,.... This feast was instituted as a memorial of the deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt, and was an eminent type of Christ; and this passover was what Christ had greatly desired, it being his last, and when he was to express his great love to his people, mentioned here, by dying for them. It was two days before this feast, so the Persic version reads this text, at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, that the things recorded in this chapter were transacted; see Mat 26:2;

when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world to the Father. The death of Christ is here signified by a departing out of this world, a way of speaking frequently used by the Jews as expressive of death; See Gill on Phi 1:23. Much such a phrase is made use of concerning Moses, of whom it is said ^p, that the fourth song that was sung in the world, was sung by him

"when "his time was come", למפטר מן עלמא, "to depart out of the world";''

an easy and familiar form of speech to express death by, as if it was only a removing front one place to another. The place from whence Christ was about to remove is called "this world": this present world, into which he was come to save sinners, and in which he then was, and where he had already met with very ill usage, and barbarous treatment, and was to meet with more: where he was going is said to be "to the Father", in whose bosom he lay, by whom he was sent, from whom he came; to his God and Father, and the God and Father of all his people, to take his place in their nature at his right hand. A time or hour was fixed for this; for as there was a set time, called "the fulness of time", agreed upon for his coming into the world, so there was for his going out of it: and now this "his hour was come"; the time was now up, or at least very near at hand; and he "knew" it, being God omniscient, which gave him no uneasiness: nor did it in the least alienate his affections from his people: for

having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them to the end. The objects of his love are described by his property in them, "his own"; by whom are meant, not all mankind, who are his by creation; nor the Jews, who were his nation and countrymen according to the flesh; nor the twelve apostles only, whom he had chosen; but all the elect of God, who are his own, by his choice of them, by the Father's gift of them to him, by the purchase he made of them with his blood, and by his effectual call of them by his grace: these are also described by their condition and situation, "which were in the world"; which is not said to distinguish them from the saints that were in heaven, or to express their former state of unregeneracy, but their present situation in this vain and evil world, which is no objection to Christ's love to them; for though whilst in this world they carry about with them a body of sin and death, are liable to many snares and temptations, and are involved in the troubles, and exposed to the hatred of the world, yet are, and always will be, the objects of the love and care of Christ. The acts of his love to them are expressed both in time past, and to come: "having loved" them; so he did from everlasting, with a love of complacency and delight, which he showed as early by espousing their persons to himself, by undertaking their cause, by taking the charge of their persons, and the care of both their grace and glory, and in time by assuming their nature; and having done all this, "he loved them to the end": and which he showed by dying for them; and continues to show by interceding for them in heaven, by supplying them with all grace, and by preserving them from a final and total falling away; and he will at last introduce them into his kingdom and glory, when they shall be for ever with him; and so that love to them continues not only to the end of his own life, nor barely to the end of theirs, but to the end of the world, and for ever; and so εις τελος, signifies, and is rendered "continually", Luk 18:5, and in the Septuagint on Psa 9:6 answers to לנצח, which signifies "for ever"; and is so translated here by the Ethiopic version.

Gill: Joh 13:2

And supper being ended,.... Or rather "supper being", or it "being supper time", for it was not ended; not the paschal supper, nor the Lord's supper, but the supper in Simon's house at Bethany, two days before the passover. There is no mention made in this whole chapter of the passover supper, or of any of its rites: the washing of the disciples' feet was a peculiar action of our Lord's, and had no manner of regard to any usage among the Jews at such a time; nor was it ever usual with them, at the passover, to wash the feet of those that ate of it; there is not the least trace of any such custom in any of their writings: besides, it is said in so many words, in Joh 13:1, that this was "before the feast of the passover"; and by comparing it with Mat 26:2, it appears to be two days before it; and so much time seems necessary to be allowed, for Judas to do what he did after this supper, in which he was first instigated to it: and that the feast of the passover was yet to come, when this supper was ended, and Judas had taken the sop, and was bid to do quickly what he did, is manifest from the sense the disciples put upon those words of Christ, who thought he ordered him to get the necessaries for the feast, Joh 13:29, which can be understood of no other than the feast of the passover, which was at hand, and for which many things were to be got ready; to which may be added, that Satan's entering into Judas, and putting it into his heart to betray his master, and his covenanting with the high priests to do it for such a sum, were before the passover supper, as is clear from Luk 22:1. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that Judas could meet that night, after the supper, with the chief priests, captains, and all the council, the great sanhedrim, who could not be together; since by the law of the passover, every head of a family was to be with his respective family: and if this could be supposed, yet there seems to be some time between this agreement, and the execution of it, in which he sought for a proper opportunity, Mat 26:16. Nor can it be thought there was time enough to do all he did, as to covenant with the chief priests, form his scheme for apprehending Christ, and get such a number of men together for that purpose, between the supper, and the time of night in which Christ was betrayed. Besides, certain it is, that Christ and his disciples arose from the place where he ate his supper, and went from thence elsewhere, Joh 14:31, which cannot be understood very well of any other departure than his going from Bethany to Jerusalem, and not of his going from Jerusalem to the garden, which is afterwards spoken of as a distinct thing, Joh 18:1. And to say no more, there is not in this chapter the least hint of the institution of the Lord's supper, which all the other evangelists make mention of, when they relate the last passover of our Lord. The reader may be more fully satisfied of the truth of this by consulting Dr. Lightfoot on Mat 26:6.

The devil having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; the person Satan influenced and acted upon, for his purpose, was Judas iscariot, Simon's son: whether this was Simon the Pharisee, or Simon the leper, in whose house Christ and his disciples were, or who he was, is not certain: was there any reason to think it might be Simon the tanner that was the father of Judas, or that either he or his father were tanners, I would venture to add one conjecture more to what has been made on Mat 10:4, concerning Judas's surname, Iscariot, as that it may come from "Iscortia", which signifies a tanner's coat: for so it is said in the ^q Talmud,

"what is איסקורטיא, "Iscortia?" says Rabba bar Chanah, it is כיתונא דצלא, "a tanner's coat":''

a sort of a leathern garment, as the gloss says, which tanners put over their clothes. However, this man was an apostle of Christ's whom Satan tempted to betray him; so that we see that the highest office, and greatest gifts, cannot secure men from the temptations of Satan: the manner in which he tempted him was, he "put", or "cast it into his heart"; it was a dart, and a fiery one, he threw into him, into his very heart; which shows the access Satan has into, and the influence he has upon the minds of men: his end in this temptation was to work upon him "to betray" Christ, his Lord and master, who had chosen him to be an apostle of his, and had invested him with this high office, into the hands of his enemies, in order to be put to death. This was an affair determined by God, known by Christ, and which he foretold to his disciples; yet all this did not in the least excuse the malice of Satan, and the wickedness of Judas: it was an action devilish indeed, and which, one would think, could never have entered into his heart, had not the devil put it there; and this was at supper time, whilst they were at table together, that this thought was darted into his mind; which is mentioned to show, that no place and company can preserve persons from the evil suggestions of the devil, and to aggravate the sin of Judas, who when, and while he was eating bread with Christ, first thought of, and determined to lift up his heel against him: moreover, it was when the ointment was poured on the head of Christ, and whilst Judas was fretting at it, that Satan took the opportunity of his choler and wrath, to stir him up to so vile an action. This account is prefaced to Christ's washing the feet of his disciples, to show the great composure of mind Christ was in, though he knew what was doing; and his wonderful condescension in washing the feet of so vile a creature, into whose heart Satan had already put it to betray him; and also his care of, and love to the rest of the disciples, when Satan had got possession of one of them.

Gill: Joh 13:3

Jesus knowing that the Father,.... These words express the sense Christ had of his own greatness and dignity as Mediator:

had given all things into his hands; all the persons of the elect, all blessings both of grace and glory for them, and power and authority over all other persons and things, to make them subservient to his purposes:

and that he was come from God; had his mission and commission, as man, from God; did not come of himself, but he sent him:

and went to God; or was going to him in a very little time, to sit at his right hand, to have a name above every name, and to have angels, authorities, and powers subject to him; which, as it shows his high esteem with his Father, and his exalted character as Mediator, so it greatly illustrates his wonderful humility, that in the view, and under a sense and consideration of all this, he should condescend to wash the feet of his disciples; of which an account is given in the following verses.

Gill: Joh 13:4

He riseth from supper,.... In the midst of the entertainment, and which no doubt was considerable, his mind being intent on something else; and it being his meat and drink to do his Father's will, he rises and leaves his disciples sitting to finish their meal; and whilst they were murmuring at the waste of the ointment poured on his head, and were filled with indignation at it, as they all of them were, see Mat 26:8; he rises up to wash their feet; amazing patience and humility!

And laid aside his garments; not all his garments, only his upper ones, that he might better dispatch the business he was going about; and which was an emblem of his laying aside, as it were for a while, his glory and dignity as the Son of God, and of his appearing in the form of a servant.

And took a towel; or "linen cloth", λεντιον, the same with לונטית in the Jerusalem Talmud ^r:

and girded himself; with the towel, or linen cloth, which served both for a girdle, and after he had washed his disciples' feet, to wipe them with. This was a servile habit; so servants used to stand at the feet of their masters, girt about with a linen cloth ^s; and shows, that the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.

Gill: Joh 13:5

After that be poureth water into a bason,.... This also was a servile work, and what properly belonged to servants to do; see Joh 2:5. The bason to wash the feet in, called by the Jews רגלים עריבת, was fixed by their doctors to hold, "from two logs to nine kabs" ^t; not "from two logs to ten", as Dr. Lightfoot has rendered the passage referred to. A "kab" held about a quart of our measure, and a "log" was the fourth part of a "kab".

And began to wash the disciples feet. This custom of washing the feet was not used by the Jews at their passover, nor at their private entertainments, or common meals, but at the reception of strangers or travellers, which were just come off of a journey, whereby they had contracted dirt and filth, and was a servile work, never performed by superiors to their inferiors, but by inferiors to superiors; as by the wife to the husband, by the son to the father, and by the servant to his master; and was an instance of great humility in any others, as in Abigail, who said to David, "let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my Lord", 1Sa 25:41, upon which place some Jewish Rabbins ^u have this note:

"this she said, על צד הענוה, "by way of humility", to show, that it would have been sufficient to her, if she became a wife to one of the servants of David, and washed his feet, as was the custom of a wife to her husband.''

But what a surprising instance of humility and condescension is this, that Christ, the Lord and master, should wash the feet of his disciples, when it was their proper work and business to have washed his? Though Dr. Lightfoot says, he does not remember that this was expected from the disciple toward his master, unless included in that rule, "that the disciple is to honour his master, more than his father"; whereas it was a fixed point ^w with the Jews,

"that all works which a servant does to his master, a disciple does to his master, except unloosing his shoe.''

Since therefore it was the work of a servant to wash his master's feet, a disciple was obliged to do this to his master likewise:

and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded; as he began he went through with his work; and having washed their feet, he wipes them clean; which may design the purity of the lives and conversations of the saints in general, and of the ministers of the Gospel in particular, whose feet are beautiful when shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace, and their conversations are as become the Gospel they preach; both which they have from Christ.

Gill: Joh 13:6

Then cometh he to Simon Peter,.... After having washed the feet of some of the disciples, as is thought by some interpreters, and particularly the feet of Judas, without any repulse; though others are of opinion that he began with Peter, who modestly, and out of reverence to him, refuses to be washed by him:

and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet! he speaks as one surprised and astonished that Christ should offer to do any such thing to him; that he, who was the Son of the living God, should wash the feet of such a sinful man as he was; that those hands, with which he had wrought such miracles, as the opening the eyes of the blind, cleansing lepers, and raising the dead, should be employed in washing his defiled feet, the meaner and inferior parts of his body; this he thought was greatly below his dignity and character, and too much to be done by him to such a worthless creature as he was.

Gill: Joh 13:7

Jesus answered and said unto him,.... Christ replies,

what I do, thou knowest not now: Peter knew that he was about to wash his feet, and the rest of his disciples, but he did not know the meaning and mystery of it, what Christ designed by it, and what instruction they were to receive from it,

but thou shalt know hereafter; as he did, when he had performed this service, and explained it to him. This may teach us, under dark providences, the meaning of which is not yet known by us, to wait the Lord's own time, to make things clear and plain to us, and in the mean time patiently submit to the divine will.

Gill: Joh 13:8

Peter saith unto him, thou shall never wash my feet,.... Before he had behaved with modesty, but now with obstinacy and perverseness; and though these expressions might arise from great reverence to Christ, yet they were wrong and rashly spoken. Peter ought to have been satisfied with Christ's reply, and have submitted, since though he then did not know the reason of such surprising conduct, he should hereafter. In order therefore to bring him to a compliance,

Jesus answered him, if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me; he does not say, if I wash not thy feet, but thee, meaning not with water, but with his blood, and by his Spirit; for Christ uses the word wash here, not literally, but in a mystical and figurative sense, and takes an occasion, as he sometimes does, from things natural, to discourse of things spiritual: moreover, he does not say, thou hast no part "in" me, but thou hast no part "with" me, that is, no fellowship and communion with me; see 2Co 6:14; and it is as if he should say, Peter, if I had not washed thee with the washing of regeneration by my Spirit, and if I should not shed my blood for thee, and wash thee in it from thy sins, sad would be thy case; thou couldest have no communion with me in this world, nor any part and portion with me in the heavenly inheritance hereafter. Hence it may be observed, that unless a man is washed by Christ, he can have no part with him in this, or the other world. God's elect have a part, an interest in Christ through eternal, electing, and covenant grace, and in consequence of this are washed by Christ both with his blood, and with the washing of regeneration: and this is done in order that they may have a part with Christ, spiritual fellowship with him now, and possess with him the undefiled inheritance, when time shall be no more.

Gill: Joh 13:9

Simon Peter saith unto him,.... Being convinced of his mistake in not submitting to Christ, fearing he should he deprived of communion with him, than which nothing was more desirable to him, or more highly esteemed of by him, says,

Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head; which shows the sense he had of the general pollution of his nature, and the need he stood in particularly of having his feet, hands, and head washed both as a minister, and a believer. By his "feet" may be meant, either the grace of faith, which is the foot of the soul, by which it goes to Christ, and walks on in him, and was not without its imperfections; or the affections of the mind, which are that to the soul, as feet are to the body; and when they move right, move heavenward, Godward, and Christward; but sometimes they are inordinate, and cleave to the things of this world: or the outward life and conversation is meant, which is attended with daily infirmities; and each of these need washing in the blood of Christ. His "hands" may design all his actions, works, services, duties, and performances, the hand being the instrument of action; and not only the hands of wicked men, but even of saints, need washing, their best righteousnesses being as filthy rags. By his "head" may be meant doctrines and principles imbibed in the mind, and expressed by the lips, which were not free from mistake and pollution, and needed purging and cleansing; for the disciples were not as yet clear from the prejudices of the Jewish nation, especially relating to the nature of the Messiah's kingdom.

Gill: Joh 13:10

Jesus saith to him, he that is washed,.... Not he that is baptized; for every such person is not wholly clean, but he who is regenerated by the Spirit of God, or rather, who is washed in the blood of Christ: such an one "is clean every whit"; is all over clean; not that he has no sin in him, nor commits any; but as he is washed in the blood of Christ, and justified by his righteousness, he is wholly and entirely clean in the sight of God; for he is justified from all things he could not be justified from by the law of Moses; all his sins are pardoned, and he is perfectly righteous before God; and so is perfectly clean through the word or sentence of justification and absolution pronounced on him, which must be understood in a forensic or law sense. And such an one

needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; the feet of his life and conversation, which are continually gathering dirt, and need daily washing in the blood of Christ; and therefore recourse must be constantly had to that fountain to wash in, for sin and for uncleanness. The allusion is either to persons washed all over in a bath, who have no need to wash again, unless their feet, which may contract some soil in coming out of it; or to travellers, who have often need to wash their feet, though no other part, and such is the case of the children of God in this life; or rather to the priests, who having bathed themselves in the morning, needed not to wash again all the day, except their hands and feet, on certain occasions ^x.

And ye are clean, but not all; which shows, that justifying and regenerating grace are common to all the true disciples of Christ; they are equally born again, alike justified, and are as clean one as an other in the sight of God; not only Peter, but all the apostles, were clean, excepting one; there was one of them, Judas, who was not clean; and therefore he says, but not all: whence it may be observed, that among the purest societies, there are some unclean persons; there was a Judas, an unclean person among the pure disciples of Christ; there are chaff and tares among his wheat, goats among his sheep, and foolish virgins along with the wise ones.

Gill: Joh 13:11

For he knew who should betray him,.... That is, Jesus, as Beza's ancient copy, and the Syriac and Persic versions read. This he knew from the beginning; not only from the beginning of his ministry, when he chose his twelve apostles, but from the beginning of time, yea, from everlasting; this being fixed by the determinate counsel of God, which he, as the omniscient God, was privy to: he knew what preparations were making, and how things were then working, in order to bring it about; he knew that Satan had already put it into Judas's heart, and that he had consented to it;

therefore, said he, ye are not all clean: he does not mention his name, though he could have done so, it not being as yet proper to make so full a discovery of him, before the matter was ripe for execution; and also to put all the disciples upon examination of themselves.

Gill: Joh 13:12

So after he had washed their feet,.... Not Peter's only, but the rest of the disciples also: some have thought, that he washed only the feet of some of them, and not all; but it seems, by this expression, that he performed this service to each of them: and when he had gone through it with everyone of them:

and had taken his garments, and put them on,

and was sat down again; at the table with his disciples, supper not being yet ended; when having done his work as a servant, he reassumes the air and authority of Lord and master, and begins to teach and instruct, into the design and use of what he had been doing, which he introduces by putting this question;

he said unto them, know ye what I have done to you? They knew the outward action he had done to them, that he had washed their feet; but, as yet, they did not know the mystery of it, Christ's design in it, and what he would have them learn from it.

Gill: Joh 13:13

Ye call me Master and Lord,.... רבי, and מר, "Master" and "Lord", were dignified titles among the Jews, which they frequently ^y gave to their doctors and men of learning, and are often to be met with in their writings: hence the disciples called Christ by these names, not out of flattery, but reverence of him, and esteem for him; nor are they blamed, but commended for it:

and ye say well, for so I am; though he had acted the part of a servant in such a surprising manner, by washing their feet; yet he had not dropped and lost, but still maintains his place and authority as a "Master" to teach and instruct them, and as a "Lord" to rule and govern them.

Gill: Joh 13:14

If I then your Lord and Master,.... Christ argues from these titles and characters, which his disciples rightly gave him, and from what he had done to them, though he stood in such a superior relation to them, to their duty one towards another; that since, says he, I

have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet: by which he does not mean barely, that they should perform this single action; but as this was an instance of humility and condescension, and doing a good office to strangers and travellers, and was afterwards an expression of love to the saints, see 1Ti 5:10, so he would teach them hereby, to behave in a spirit of humility and condescension to one another, to do every kind and good office, and by love to serve one another in all things.

Gill: Joh 13:15

For I have given you an example,.... Christ is an example to his people, in many things; not in his miraculous performances and mediatorial work, but in the exercise of grace, of meekness, humility, love, patience, and the like; and in the discharge of duty, in submission to ordinances, and in attending on them; and in the several duties, both to them that are without, and to them that are within; and also in his sufferings and death; not that he died merely as an example, but likewise in the room and stead of his people; but here he is spoken of, as an example, in a particular instance:

that ye should do as I have done to you; wash one another's feet, as he had washed theirs; which is not to be understood literally and singly of this action, as though this was an ordinance binding upon all persons, in all places, and to be attended to at certain stated times, as has been the practice of some: it was so understood by the church at Milain, and there practised; and this custom was continued and defended by St. Ambrose, even though not received by the church of Rome; in some places the bishop used to wash the feet of those that were baptized, which in process of time being thought sufficient, instead of baptism, was forbidden by the council at Eliberis. In imitation of this, the pope every year, on Thursday in the passion week, washes the feet of twelve men; and it is an anniversary ceremony performed by the kings of England and France, to wash the feet of twelve poor people, in commemoration of this action of Christ's: but our Lord is not to be understood literally, nor of anything that was to be done once a year, but of what was daily and constantly to be practised; and which was to be done not by one only, to all the rest, but what they were mutually to do; what they were to do to one another; for the thing signified, reaches to, and is obligatory upon all Christians. Our Lord's meaning is, that as he had, by this action, given them an example of humility, condescension, and love; so they should exercise these graces, and perform such kind offices to one another, and to all their fellow Christians.

Gill: Joh 13:16

Verily, verily, I say unto you,.... This is a strong way of asseveration, and is used when anything of moment and importance, and worthy of attention and observation is delivered.

The servant is not greater than his Lord; it is enough that he be as his Lord, which was a common phrase among the Jews; See Gill on Mat 10:24, Mat 10:25; and as it is there made use of, to inform the disciples they must expect persecution, and to encourage them to bear it with patience; here it is designed to engage to humility; for if a master condescends to perform such an action, much more may a servant:

neither he that is sent, is greater than he that sent him. This is also a way of speaking in use among the Jews;

"R. Meir says, ^z who is greatest, he that keeps, or he that is kept? from what is written in Psa 91:11, he that is kept, is greater than he that keeps: says R. Judah, which is greatest, he that carries, or he that is carried? from what is written in Psa 91:12, he that is carried, is greater than he that carries: says R. Simeon, from what is written, in Isa 6:8, הוי המשלח גדול מן המשתלח, "he that sends, is greater than he that is sent".''

Which is the very phrase here used by Christ; and his meaning is this, that if it was not below him, who had chose and called, and sent them forth as his apostles, to wash their feet, they who were sent by him, should not disdain to wash one another's.

Gill: Joh 13:17

If ye know these things,.... The duties they owed to him, and one another; those kind offices of love and respect to each other; the humility, condescension, and brotherly love, which ought to be in them, and of which he had given them an example:

happy are ye if ye do them; for the bare theory, or a mere speculative knowledge of these things, is not sufficient; not he that knows and does not, but he that knows and does his master's will, is blessed; he is blessed with communion with his Lord, and shall hereafter enter into his joy, with "well done good and faithful servant". There is an happiness "in" doing well, and which follows "on" it, though not "for" it, in a way of merit; on the other hand, persons who know and do not, are very unhappy; the Jews have a saying ^a,

שהלמד שלא לעשות, "he that learns but not to do", it would have been better for him, if he had never been created; and says R. Jochanan, he that learns but not to do, it would have been better for him if his secundine had been turned upon his face, and he had never come into the world.''

Gill: Joh 13:18

I speak not of you all. What he had before said on the one hand, "ye are not all clean", Joh 13:11, for one of them was not; and on the other hand, when he put an "if" upon, or seemed to doubt of their knowing and doing these things, Joh 13:17; or what he was about to say concerning his being betrayed, this he did not speak of them all:

I know whom I have chosen; not to apostleship, for they were all chosen to that, Judas as well as the rest, but to grace and glory, to everlasting salvation and happiness; of these he was well assured, that they were all clean, pure, and spotless, in the sight of God; were truly regenerated by the Spirit of God, and had an experimental and practical knowledge of the things he recommended by his example, and would be the happy persons he spake of;

but he observes, so it is, and will come to pass, that there is one of you which will betray me:

that the Scripture may be fulfilled: Psa 41:9, as it literally ^b was in Judas's betraying Christ. The passage is by many interpreted either of Ahithophel, or of some other counsellor of Absalom's, or of Absalom himself; and is applied to their conduct, with respect to David, at the time of their rebellion against him; and which is thought to be typical of the treatment Christ met with from an apostle of his: but we do not find that, at the time of that rebellion, David was sick, or had any disease upon him, from whence they might hope for his death; it does not seem, as though it could be literally understood of David at all, and of the behaviour of any of his servants; but most properly of David's son, the Messiah, Jesus, with whom everything in the psalm agrees; and particularly this verse, which so plainly describes Judas, and expresses his base ingratitude, hypocrisy, and malice: the former part of the text is not cited, "yea, mine own familiar friend", or "the man of my peace, in whom I trusted"; though it fully agrees with him, he being admitted to great familiarity with Christ, and lived peaceably with him; and who was intrusted by him with the bag, into which the money was put, which was ministered, either for the sustenance of him and his apostles, or for the use of the poor: but our Lord thought fit to cite no more of it than what follows, that being sufficiently descriptive of him; and especially at this present time, when he was at table with his Lord.

He that eateth bread with me, hath lift up his heel against me; he sat down with him at table frequently, and ate bread with him; and was doing so, when Satan put it into his heart to betray him; which is strongly expressed, by "lifting up" his "heel against him"; and sets forth the ingratitude, wickedness, and cruelty of him; who, like an unruly horse, that has thrown his rider, spurns at him, to destroy him; and also the insidious manner in which he did it; he supplanted, he tripped him, as wrestlers do, in order to cast him down to the ground, and then trample upon him, and triumph over him: he first מארב, "laid snares for him", as Jarchi explains the phrase used in the "psalm", and then הגדיל, "he magnified his heel", he behaved proudly and haughtily to him.

Gill: Joh 13:19

Now I tell you before it come,.... That is, gave them notice of this before hand, that one of them should betray him:

that when it is come to pass; and they had seen it fulfilled exactly to a tittle, and according to this Scripture:

ye may believe that I am he: the Lord God omniscient, who knows and declares things before they come to pass, just as they do come to pass, which none but the eternal God can do; and that he was the Saviour and Redeemer, the Messiah spoken of and promised, the very person prophesied of, in Psalm 41. For that whole "psalm" is applicable to Jesus Christ, the true Messiah; in Psa 41:1, the happiness of such is declared, who "consider the poor"; the Messiah, in his low estate of humiliation, who became poor for the sake of his people; in Psa 41:5, his enemies are represented as wishing for his death; their hypocrisy, perfidy, and vile designs upon his life, are aptly described in Psa 41:6, which they executed by suborning false witnesses, bringing a wrong charge, דבר בליעל, "a wicked accusation against him", Psa 41:8, which succeeded, to the taking away of his life; and then they are introduced as triumphing over him, lying dead in the grave, whom they believed would never rise more; but in this they were mistaken, for he was raised up again; for which he prays, Psa 41:10, that he might requite them, as he did, by destroying their city, temple, and nation; and the whole is concluded with thankfulness to God, for raising and exalting him, and setting him before his face for ever, Psa 41:11. There is but one passage in it, which has any difficulty in applying it to Christ, and that is, Psa 41:4, where he is spoken of as having sinned against the Lord; but the words may be rendered thus, "heal my soul", i.e. deliver me out of my sorrows and afflictions, לך כי הטאתי, "because I have made an offering for sin unto thee"; and well agrees with Christ, who was to make, and has made his soul an offering for sin.

Gill: Joh 13:20

Verily, verily, I say unto you,.... You may assure yourselves of the truth of what I am going to say, and which I say for your comfort and encouragement:

he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me; I have sent you in my name to preach the Gospel; you are my ambassadors, and you will be honourably received by many; and which I shall regard and take notice of, and esteem, as though they had received me; even as my Father has sent me into this world, as a Saviour and Redeemer, a prophet, priest, and King; and as many as have received me, are looked upon by my Father, as having received him: in short, such as cordially receive and embrace the ministers of the Gospel, receive Christ, in whose name they come, and whom they preach; and such who receive Christ, as preached and held forth in the everlasting Gospel, receive the Father of Christ; and partake of his love, grace, and kindness, shown forth in the mission and gift of Christ to them: Christ, as Mediator, represented his Father that sent him; and the ministers of Christ represent him; so that what is done to them, either in a way of reception or rejection, he takes as done to himself: it is a common saying among the Jews ^c, של אדם כמותו ששלוחו, "that the messenger of a man is as himself".

Gill: Joh 13:21

When Jesus had thus said,.... Having spoken of the mission of his disciples by him, of their reception among men, and the notice that would be taken of it by him:

he was troubled in spirit; in his soul, which shows him to be truly and really man, and to have an human soul, which some have denied; and that to be of like passions with ours, only without sin: he was troubled, not at what he had said, but at what he was about to say concerning the betrayer; and that not so much on his own account, because of the danger, the sorrows, and sufferings he should be exposed to, as on account of the horrible blackness of the crime, and the vengeance that would fall upon the criminal; and being thus inwardly distressed at this affair,

he testified and said: he spake out openly and plainly, what he had before secretly intimated, and that with the greatest certainty:

verily, verily, I say unto you; it is truth, it may be believed, however unexpected and strange it may seem to be:

that one of you shall betray me; to the chief priests and elders, in order to be put to death.

Gill: Joh 13:22

Then the disciples looked one to another,.... As persons surprised and astonished, and as scarce crediting what was said; not having had the least suspicion of anyone among them, that could be guilty of such an action; and expressing by their looks their detestation of, and indignation at so horrible an iniquity; or they looked one to another, to observe if they could, whether the countenance of anyone would discover who the person was:

doubting of whom he spake; not being able to conceive and imagine, who the person was he had in view; from whence it appears, that Judas, to this time, had behaved outwardly as well as any of the other disciples; he had given no occasion, by his conduct, to suspect him more than any other: upon this broad intimation, or rather strong protestation which Christ made, that one of them should betray him, their eyes were not turned to him directly and particularly, but to one another.

Gill: Joh 13:23

Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom,.... Not pressing upon that part of Christ's body, which would have been irreverent in John, and troublesome to Christ; but leaning at table upon his bed or couch, on which he lay; and which was next to, and just before Christ; so that he was very near unto, and seemed to lie in the bosom of Christ; as such are said to do, who sit next at table to another. The posture of the Jews at table, was either "sitting" or "lying", and a difference they make between these two;

"if, say they ^d, היו יושבין, "they sat" to eat everyone asked a blessing for himself; but if הסיבו, "they lay down", one asked a blessing for them all.''

This lying down was not on their backs, nor on their right side, but on their left; for they say ^e, that

"lying down on the back, is not called הסיבה, "lying down"; and lying on the right side, is not called lying down.''

And the reason given is ^f, because they have need of the right hand to eat with; but as they elsewhere ^g observe,

"they used to eat lying along, leaning on the left side, their feet to the ground, and every man on a single couch.''

Would you know the order in which they, lay, take the account as they have given it ^h;

"when there were but two couches, the principal person lay first, and the second to him above him; and when there were three, the principal person lay in the middle, the second to him above him, and the third below him; and if he would talk with him, he raised himself upright, and sitting upright he talked with him; that is, as the gloss explains it, if the principal person was desirous to talk with him that was second to him, he must raise himself up from his lying down, and sit upright; for all the white he is leaning, he cannot talk with him, because he that is second to him, is behind the head of the principal person, and the face of the principal person is turned to the other side; and it is better for the second to sit below him, that he may hear his words, whilst he is leaning.''

The form in which Christ and his disciples sat or lay at table, we may conceive was this ⁱ; a table was placed in the middle and as many beds or couches round it, as there were persons; Christ the principal and most worthy person lay first, with his head toward the table, his face somewhat turned from it, leaning on his left elbow upon the couch; in this posture lay Jesus, upon the first couch; in the same posture lay John, in the next to him, and just before him; the hinder part of his head being towards, and near the breast and bosom of Jesus; whence he is said to lean upon it: now to lie next to the principal person, was a very great honour, as well as a mark of great affection; and for John to lie next to Jesus, and as it were to lean on his bosom, showed how much he was respected and honoured by him; and therefore John modestly conceals his name, and only says,

one of his disciples whom Jesus loved; Christ, as the Son of God, and surety of his people, loved his true disciples, as he does all his elect, alike; not one more than the other; but as man, he had a particular affection for this disciple, and therefore admitted him near his person, and was very familiar with him.

Gill: Joh 13:24

Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him,.... Peter perhaps lay at a distance from Christ, or in some such position, that he could not whisper to him himself; and besides, knew that John might use more freedom, as he was admitted to more familiarity with him; and being at some distance also from him, he beckoned to him; which was usually done at meals, when they could not, by reason of their posture, discourse together: this being the case, מחוי ליה במחוג, "they made signs", by nodding to one another ^k; that is, as the gloss explains it, they pointed with their hands and fingers, and by nodding or beckoning; such a method Peter took, signifying his desire,

that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake: which he did not out of mere curiosity, but from an honest intention and pure zeal, that he, with the rest, might show their abhorrence of such a person, and avoid him; and do all that lay in their power to hinder him from putting his designs into execution, and that the innocent might be free from all suspicion.

Gill: Joh 13:25

He then lying on Jesus' breast,.... Being on the couch just before Jesus, with his back to him, he bends backwards, and falling on Jesus' breast, whispers in his ear:

and saith unto him, Lord, who is it? using his interest in Christ, and making thus free with him, in compliance with Peter's request; and was no doubt desirous himself of knowing who the person was.

Gill: Joh 13:26

Jesus answered, he it is,.... Jesus replied, by whispering; for had he spoken out, the rest could not have been so ignorant, as they still continued, after the sign was given: Christ, I say, whispered to John, and told him by what sign he might know the person, and that it was he,

to whom, says he,

I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. This was not the passover sop, which was dipped into a sauce made of various things, called by the Jews חרוסת; for this was not the "paschal" supper, but a common supper at a private house, two days before the feast of the passover; but this sop, or rather crust of bread, which whether dipped into a liquid, or only a piece of dry bread, which Christ dipped his hand into the dish for, and took, as some think, is not very material, was a piece of common bread, which Christ took up, without regard to any custom, or ceremony used at any feasts, and gave it to the betrayer, as a sign by which John might know him:

and when he, had dipped the sop; either into some sort of broth, or any other liquid, or had dipped his hand into the dish for it:

he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon; so called, to distinguish him from another apostle, whose name was Judas, and was then present.

Gill: Joh 13:27

And after the sop, Satan entered into him,.... After he had taken and eaten the sop, or crust of bread, by which he was pointed out to be the betrayer, "Satan entered into him"; possessed his body, and filled his mind, and stirred him up more eagerly to pursue with rigour his wicked design. The Jews have a saying ^l, that

"no man commits a transgression, until נכנס בו רוח שטות, "a spirit of madness enters into him".''

Such an evil spirit entered into Judas, which pushed him on to commit this horrid iniquity:

then said Jesus to him, that thou doest, do quickly; this he said, not as approving his wicked design, and exhorting him to it as a laudable action, but rather as deriding him, having nothing to care about, or fear from him; or as upbraiding him with his perfidy and wickedness, and signifying that he should take no methods to prevent him, though he fully knew what was in his heart to do; and it seems also to express the willingness of Christ, and his eager and hearty desire to suffer and die for his people, in order to obtain salvation for them.

Gill: Joh 13:28

Now no man at the table,.... Not one of those who lay upon the couches at the table, excepting John, to whom the signal was given:

knew for what intent he spake this unto him; and perhaps he might not know the meaning of his last words, that he spoke concerning the act of betraying him; nor did not imagine that the thing was so near and so speedily to be done, as it was.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Joh 13:1

¹ tn Grk “his hour.”

² tn Grk “that he should depart.” The ἵνα (Jina) clause in Koine Greek frequently encroached on the simple infinitive (for the sake of greater clarity).

³ tn Or “he now loved them completely,” or “he now loved them to the uttermost” (see John 19:30). All of John 13:1 is a single sentence in Greek, although in English this would be unacceptably awkward. At the end of the verse the idiom εἰς τέλος (eis telos) was translated literally as “to the end” and the modern equivalents given in the note above, because there is an important lexical link between this passage and John 19:30, τετέλεσται (tetelestai, “It is ended”).

sn The full extent of Jesus’ love for his disciples is not merely seen in his humble service to them in washing their feet (the most common interpretation of the passage). The full extent of his love for them is demonstrated in his sacrificial death for them on the cross. The footwashing episode which follows then becomes a prophetic act, or acting out beforehand, of his upcoming death on their behalf. The message for the disciples was that they were to love one another not just in humble, self-effacing service, but were to be willing to die for one another. At least one of them got this message eventually, though none understood it at the time (see 1 John 3:16).

NET Notes: Joh 13:2

¹ tn Or “Supper.” To avoid possible confusion because of different regional English usage regarding the distinction between “dinner” and “supper” as an evening meal, the translation simply refers to “the evening meal.”

² sn At this point the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus. C. K. Barrett (St. John, 365) thought this was a reference to the idea entering the devil’s own heart, but this does not seem likely. It is more probable that Judas’ heart is meant, since the use of the Greek article (rather than a possessive pronoun) is a typical idiom when a part of one’s own body is indicated. Judas’ name is withheld until the end of the sentence for dramatic effect (emphasis). This action must be read in light of 13:27, and appears to refer to a preliminary idea or plan.

³ tn Or “that he should hand over.”

⁴ tn Grk “betray him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Joh 13:3

¹ tn Grk “Because he knew”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “had given all things into his hands.”

NET Notes: Joh 13:4

¹ tn Grk “and removed”; the conjunction καί (kai, “and”) has been left untranslated here for improved English style.

² tn The plural τὰ ἱμάτια (ta Jimatia) is probably a reference to more than one garment (cf. John 19:23-24). If so, this would indicate that Jesus stripped to a loincloth, like a slave. The translation “outer clothes” is used to indicate that Jesus was not completely naked, since complete nudity would have been extremely offensive to Jewish sensibilities in this historical context.

³ tn Grk “taking a towel he girded himself.” Jesus would have wrapped the towel (λέντιον, lention) around his waist (διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν, diezwsen Jeauton) for use in wiping the disciples’ feet. The term λέντιον is a Latin loanword (linteum) which is also found in the rabbinic literature (see BDAG 592 s.v.). It would have been a long piece of linen cloth, long enough for Jesus to have wrapped it about his waist and still used the free end to wipe the disciples’ feet.

NET Notes: Joh 13:5

¹ tn Grk “with the towel with which he was girded.”

NET Notes: Joh 13:6

¹ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Peter) is specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “do you wash” or “are you washing.”

NET Notes: Joh 13:7

¹ tn Grk “answered and said to him.”

² tn Grk “You do not know.”

³ tn Grk “you will know.”

NET Notes: Joh 13:8

¹ tn Grk “You will never wash my feet forever.” The negation is emphatic in Greek but somewhat awkward in English. Emphasis is conveyed in the translation by the use of an exclamation point.

² tn Grk “Jesus answered him.”

³ tn Or “you have no part in me.”

NET Notes: Joh 13:9

¹ tn The word “wash” is not in the Greek text, but is implied. Here it is supplied to improve the English style by making Peter’s utterance a complete sentence.

NET Notes: Joh 13:10

¹ tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

² tn Grk “has no need except to wash his feet.”

³ tn Or “entirely.”

⁴ sn The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet. A common understanding is that the “bath” Jesus referred to is the initial cleansing from sin, which necessitates only “lesser, partial” cleansings from sins after conversion. This makes a fine illustration from a homiletic standpoint, but is it the meaning of the passage? This seems highly doubtful. Jesus stated that the disciples were completely clean except for Judas (vv. 10b, 11). What they needed was to have their feet washed by Jesus. In the broader context of the Fourth Gospel, the significance of the foot-washing seems to point not just to an example of humble service (as most understand it), but something more – Jesus’ self-sacrificial death on the cross. If this is correct, then the foot-washing which they needed to undergo represented their acceptance of this act of self-sacrifice on the part of their master. This makes Peter’s initial abhorrence of the act of humiliation by his master all the more significant in context; it also explains Jesus’ seemingly harsh reply to Peter (above, v. 8; compare Matt 16:21-23 where Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan”).

⁵ tn The word “disciples” is supplied in English to clarify the plural Greek pronoun and verb. Peter is not the only one Jesus is addressing here.

NET Notes: Joh 13:11

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “Not all of you are.”

³ sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

NET Notes: Joh 13:12

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “he reclined at the table.” The phrase reflects the normal 1st century Near Eastern practice of eating a meal in a semi-reclining position.

³ tn Grk “Do you know.”

NET Notes: Joh 13:13

¹ tn Or “rightly.”

² tn Grk “and I am these things.”

NET Notes: Joh 13:15

¹ sn I have given you an example. Jesus tells his disciples after he has finished washing their feet that what he has done is to set an example for them. In the previous verse he told them they were to wash one another’s feet. What is the point of the example? If it is simply an act of humble service, as most interpret the significance, then Jesus is really telling his disciples to serve one another in humility rather than seeking preeminence over one another. If, however, the example is one of self-sacrifice up to the point of death, then Jesus is telling them to lay down their lives for one another (cf. 15:13).

NET Notes: Joh 13:16

¹ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

² tn See the note on the word “slaves” in 4:51.

³ tn Or “nor is the apostle” (“apostle” means “one who is sent” in Greek).

NET Notes: Joh 13:17

¹ tn Grk “If you know.”

NET Notes: Joh 13:18

¹ tn Grk “But so that the scripture may be fulfilled.”

² tn Or “The one who shares my food.”

³ tn Or “has become my enemy”; Grk “has lifted up his heel against me.” The phrase “to lift up one’s heel against someone” reads literally in the Hebrew of Ps 41 “has made his heel great against me.” There have been numerous interpretations of this phrase, but most likely it is an idiom meaning “has given me a great fall,” “has taken cruel advantage of me,” or “has walked out on me.” Whatever the exact meaning of the idiom, it clearly speaks of betrayal by a close associate. See E. F. F. Bishop, “‘He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me’ – Jn xiii.18 (Ps xli.9),” ExpTim 70 (1958-59): 331-33.

sn A quotation from Ps 41:9.

NET Notes: Joh 13:19

¹ tn Or (perhaps) “I am certainly telling you this.” According to BDF §12.3 ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι (ap’ arti) should be read as ἀπαρτί (aparti), meaning “exactly, certainly.”

² tn Grk “so that you may believe.”

³ tn Grk “that I am.” R. E. Brown (John [AB], 2:555) argues for a nonpredicated ἐγώ εἰμι (egw eimi) here, but this is far from certain.

NET Notes: Joh 13:20

¹ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

² tn Or “receives,” and so throughout this verse.

³ sn The one who sent me refers to God.

NET Notes: Joh 13:21

¹ tn Or “greatly troubled.”

² tn Grk “and testified and said.”

³ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

⁴ tn Or “will hand me over.”

NET Notes: Joh 13:22

¹ tn Grk “uncertain,” “at a loss.” Here two terms, “worried and perplexed,” were used to convey the single idea of the Greek verb ἀπορέω (aporew).

NET Notes: Joh 13:23

¹ sn Here for the first time the one Jesus loved, the ‘beloved disciple,’ is introduced. This individual also is mentioned in 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20. Some have suggested that this disciple is to be identified with Lazarus, since the Fourth Gospel specifically states that Jesus loved him (11:3, 5, 36). From the terminology alone this is a possibility; the author is certainly capable of using language in this way to indicate connections. But there is nothing else to indicate that Lazarus was present at the last supper; Mark 14:17 seems to indicate it was only the twelve who were with Jesus at this time, and there is no indication in the Fourth Gospel to the contrary. Nor does it appear that Lazarus ever stood so close to Jesus as the later references in chaps. 19, 20 and 21 seem to indicate. When this is coupled with the omission of all references to John son of Zebedee from the Fourth Gospel, it seems far more likely that the references to the beloved disciple should be understood as references to him.

² tn Grk “was reclining.” This reflects the normal 1st century practice of eating a meal in a semi-reclining position.

³ tn Grk “was reclining in the bosom (or “lap”) of Jesus” (according to both L&N 17.25 and BDAG 65 s.v. ἀνάκειμαι 2 an idiom for taking the place of honor at a meal, but note the similar expression in John 1:18). Whether this position or the position to the left of Jesus should be regarded as the position of second highest honor (next to the host, in this case Jesus, who was in the position of highest honor) is debated. F. Prat, “Les places d’honneur chez les Juifs contemporains du Christ” (RSR 15 [1925]: 512-22), who argued that the table arrangement was that of the Roman triclinium (a U-shaped table with Jesus and two other disciples at the bottom of the U), considered the position to the left of Jesus to be the one of second highest honor. Thus the present translation renders this “a position of honor” without specifying which one (since both of the two disciples to the right and to the left of Jesus would be in positions of honor). Other translations differ as to how they handle the phrase ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (en tw kolpw tou Ihsou; “leaning on Jesus’ bosom,” KJV; “lying close to the breast of Jesus,” RSV; “reclining on Jesus’ breast,” NASB; “reclining next to him,” NIV, NRSV) but the symbolic significance of the beloved disciple’s position seems clear. He is close to Jesus and in an honored position. The phrase as an idiom for a place of honor at a feast is attested in the Epistles of Pliny (the Younger) 4.22.4, an approximate contemporary of Paul.

sn Note that the same expression translated in a place of honor here (Grk “in the bosom of”) is used to indicate Jesus’ relationship with the Father in 1:18.

NET Notes: Joh 13:24

¹ sn It is not clear where Simon Peter was seated. If he were on Jesus’ other side, it is difficult to see why he would not have asked the question himself. It would also have been difficult to beckon to the beloved disciple, on Jesus’ right, from such a position. So apparently Peter was seated somewhere else. It is entirely possible that Judas was seated to Jesus’ left. Matt 26:25 seems to indicate that Jesus could speak to him without being overheard by the rest of the group. Judas is evidently in a position where Jesus can hand him the morsel of food (13:26).

² tn Grk “to this one”; the referent (the beloved disciple) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴ sn That is, who would betray him (v. 21).

NET Notes: Joh 13:25

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (the disciple Jesus loved) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Joh 13:26

¹ tn Grk “Jesus answered.”

² sn The piece of bread was a broken-off piece of bread (not merely a crumb).

³ tn Grk “after I have dipped it.” The words “in the dish” are not in the Greek text, but the presence of a bowl or dish is implied.

⁴ tn The words “in the dish” are not in the Greek text, but the presence of a bowl or dish is implied.

NET Notes: Joh 13:27

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Judas) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “into that one”; the pronoun “he” is more natural English style here.

sn This is the only time in the Fourth Gospel that Satan is mentioned by name. Luke 22:3 uses the same terminology of Satan “entering into” Judas but indicates it happened before the last supper at the time Judas made his deal with the authorities. This is not necessarily irreconcilable with John’s account, however, because John 13:2 makes it clear that Judas had already come under satanic influence prior to the meal itself. The statement here is probably meant to indicate that Judas at this point came under the influence of Satan even more completely and finally. It marks the end of a process which, as Luke indicates, had begun earlier.

³ tn Grk “Then Jesus said to him.”

NET Notes: Joh 13:28

¹ tn Grk “reclining at the table.” The phrase reclining at the table reflects the normal practice in 1st century Near Eastern culture of eating a meal in a semi-reclining position.

² tn Or “knew.”

³ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴ tn Grk “to him”; the referent (Judas) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

Geneva Bible: Joh 13:1

Now ^{( 1 )} before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his ^{( a )} own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

^{( 1 )} Christ is as sure of the victory as he is of the combat which was at hand, and by using the sign of washing the feet, gives by this an example in part of singular modesty, and his great love toward his apostles in this notable act, being likely to depart very shortly from them: and he partly witnesses unto them that it is he alone who washes away the filth of his people, and sanctifies them little by little in their time and season.

^{( a )} Those of his household, that is, his saints.

Geneva Bible: Joh 13:3

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his ^{( b )} hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

^{( b )} Into his power.

Geneva Bible: Joh 13:4

He ^{( c )} riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

^{( c )} In that he is said to rise, it argues that there was a space of time between the ceremony of the passover and this washing of feet, at which time it seems that the Lord's supper was instituted.

Geneva Bible: Joh 13:8

Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast ^{( d )} no part with me.

^{( d )} Unless you allow me to wash you, you will have no part in the kingdom of heaven.

Geneva Bible: Joh 13:18

^{( 2 )} I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

^{( 2 )} The betraying of Christ was not accidental, or a thing that happened by chance, but it was the Father who ordained the cause of our salvation, to reconcile us unto himself in his Son, and the Son willingly and voluntarily obeyed the Father.

Geneva Bible: Joh 13:21

When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and ^{( e )} testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

^{( e )} He affirmed it openly and sealed it.

Geneva Bible: Joh 13:23

Now there was ^{( f )} leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

^{( f )} John's leaning was such that sitting down on his mat his head was toward the head of Jesus: for it is certain that in ancient times men used to not sit at the table, but to lie down on one of their sides.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Joh 13:1-38

1 Jesus washes the disciples' feet, and exhorts them to humility and charity.

18 He foretells and discovers to John by a token, that Judas should betray him;

31 commands them to love one another;

36 and forewarns Peter of his denials.

Combined Bible: Joh 13:1-11

of the Gospel of John   

CHAPTER 45   

Christ Washing His Disciples’ Feet   

John 13:1-11   

Below is an Analysis of the passage which is to be before us:—   

1. Christ’ s unchanging love, verse 1.  

2. Judas’ s inveterate hatred, verse 2.  

3. Christ’ s return to the Father, verse 3.  

4. Christ performing a slave’ s work, verses 4, 5.  

5. Peter’ s blundering ignorance, verses 6-9.  

6. Bathing and cleansing, verse 10.  

7. The traitor excepted, verse 11.  

We are now to enter upon what many believers in each age have regarded as the most precious portion of this Gospel, yea, as one of the most blessed passages in all the Word of God. John 13 begins a new section, a section clearly distinguished and separated from what has gone before. At the beginning of the Gospel two things were stated in connection with the outcome of Christ’ s mission and ministry: the nation, as such, "received him not": this has been fully demonstrated, especially in chapters 5 to 12; second, those who did "receive him" were to be brought into the place of children of God. In chapters 13 to 17 we see Christ alone with His own, separated from the world, telling them of their peculiar portion and privileges.  

At the close of Christ’ s public ministry, we are told "He departed and did hide himself from them"; that is, from the nation (John 12:36). In 13 to 17 we find the Savior, in most intimate fellowship with His disciples, revealing to them the wondrous place which they had in His love, and how that love would be continually exercised on their behalf now that He was about to leave them and go to the Father. He had told them that, "the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). All through His career Christ had "ministered" to His own, but now, His public ministry was over and He was on the eve of giving His life a ransom for them, to be followed by Him taking His place on high. It would, therefore, be natural for the disciples to conclude that His "ministry" unto them was also ended. But not so. It would continue, and that is what this blessed section of John’ s Gospel is primarily designed to show us. He loved these disciples (and us) not only unto the Cross, but "unto the end." His return to the Father would neither terminate nor diminish the activities of His love for His own: in Heaven He is still occupied with the interest of His people.  

The central design of the "Paschal Discourse" of Christ was to lead His own into a spiritual understanding of their new place before the Father, and their new position in the world, as distinguished from the portion and place which they had had in Judaism. What we have in John 13 to 17 takes the place of the long Olivet discourse recorded by each of the Synoptists. Here, instead of taking His seat upon the Mount, He brings the disciples, in spirit, into Heaven, and reveals the glories, blessedness, and holiness of the Sanctuary there. Instead of treating of the horrors of the Tribulation, He discloses to the family of God the activities of their great High Priest, as well as their own sorrows and joys during the time of their journey through this wilderness.  

While there is a marked contrast between what we have at the close of John 12 and the beginning of 13, there is also a close link of connection between them, a link which further develops the progressive unfolding of truth in this wondrous Gospel. In chapter 12 Christ had spoken of Himself as "the corn of wheat" which had to die in order that it might bring forth "much fruit." As we have seen, this speaks of union and communion— blessedly illustrated in the opening scene, the "supper" in Bethany. But here in chapter 13 and onwards, He makes known His own most gracious work for maintaining believers in fellowship with Himself. Two things, each most blessed and evidencing His perfections, are to be noted. First, His eye is on the heavenly sanctuary (John 13:1); second, His eye is upon His own (John 13:4). He guards the holy requirements of God, and He cares for and ministers to His people. We are left here in this world, and its dust is defiling, unfitting us for entrance into the Holiest. Here in John 13 we see Christ fitting us for that place. It is important for us to recognize, though, that it is God’ s interests which He has at heart in washing our feet! Christ is here seen as the Laver which stood between the brazen altar and the sanctuary, and which was approached only after the brazen altar had done its work.  

There is a further link between John 12 and 13 which brings out a most blessed contrast— let the student be constantly on the lookout for these. At the beginning of John 12 we behold the feet of the Lord; in John 13 we see the feet of the disciples. The "feet" of Christ were anointed, those of the disciples were washed. As the Savior passed through this sinful world He contracted no defilement. He left it as He came: "holy, harmless, and undefiled." The "feet" speak of the walk, and the fact that Christ’ s feet were anointed with the fragrant spikenard tells of the sweet savor which ever ascended from Him to the Father, perfectly glorifying Him as He did in every step of His path. But in sharp contrast from Him, the walk of the disciples was defiled, and the grime of the way must be removed. Note, also, that the anointing of the Savior’ s feet is given before the washing of the disciples’ feet— in all things He must have "the preeminence" (Col. 1:18)!  

That which opens this section and introduces the "Paschal Discourse" is the Lord washing the feet of His disciples. The first thing to observe, particularly, is that it was water and not blood which was used for their cleansing. It is deeply important to note this, for many of the Lord’ s own people seem to be entirely ignorant about the distinction. Their speaking of a re-application of the blood, of coming anew to "the fountain" which has been opened for sin and uncleanness when they have transgressed, proves that this is only too sadly true. The New Testament knows nothing whatever of a re-application of the blood, or of sinning Christians needing to be washed in it again. To speak of such things is to grossly dishonor the all-efficacious sacrifice of the Cross. The blood of Jesus Christ God’ s Son cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1:7). By "one offering he hath perfected forever them that are set apart" (Heb. 10:14). This being so, what provision, we may ask, has been made for the removal of the defilements which the Christian contracts by the way? The answer is "water."  

A careful study will show that in the Old and New Testaments alike the "blood" is Godward, the "water" is saintward, to remove impurity in practice: the one affects our standing, the other our state; the former is for judicial cleansing, the latter is for practical purification. In the types, Leviticus 16 makes known God’ s requirements for the making of atonement; Numbers 19 tells of God’ s provision for the defilements of the way, as Israel journeyed through the wilderness. The latter was met not by blood, but by "the water of purification." Judicial cleansing from the guilt of all sin is the inalienable portion of every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Moral cleansing, the practical purification of the heart and ways from all that defiles and hinders our communion with God is by water, that is, the Word, applied to us in power by the Holy Spirit.  

"Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end" (John 13:1). This opening verse supplies us with the first key to what follows. What we have here anticipates that which was in view in Christ’ s return to the Father. He graciously affords us a symbolic representation of His present service for us in Heaven. He is seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High, but He is there in our interests, ever living to make intercession for us, ever there as our Advocate with the Father, ever maintaining and succouring us by the way.  

"Now before the feast of the passover," immediately before, for on the morrow Christ was to die as the true Lamb. The "passover" itself was eaten at the close of the fourteenth day of Nisan (Ex. 12:6, 8); but "the feast," which lasted seven days, began on the fifteenth (Num. 28:17). What we have here, then, transpired on the eve before our Lord’ s death.  

When Jesus knew that his hour was come." Christ is the only One who has ever trod this earth that was never taken by surprise. All was known and felt in the Father’ s presence. "That he should depart out of this world": note "this world," not "the world." It is striking to see how frequently this term occurs at the close of His life: "And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world" (John 9:39); "He that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal" (John 12:25); "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out" (John 12:31). "This world" was evidently a terrible place in the Lord’ s mind! He could not stay here. He had made the world (John 1:10), but sin has made this world what it is. Note "that he should depart out of this world unto the Father," not unto heaven! How blessed! It was the Father’ s presence His heart desired!  

"Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end." "His own"! After all the previous conflicts with an unbelieving world, after all His unavailing appeals to Israel, Christ now comforts His heart by lavishing His love upon the few who despised Him not. What a blessed expression"his own"! "Ye are not your own" (1 Cor. 6:19); we belong to Christ. We all know the delight which comes from being able to call something our own. It is not so much the value of what is possessed which constitutes this satisfaction, as it is the simple consciousness that it is mine. It is the Holy Spirit here declaring the heart of the Savior in the terms of love. It is not with our poor estimate of Him, still less with our wretched selves, that He would occupy us. He would have us taken up with Christ’ s thoughts about us! We belong to the Lord Jesus in a threefold way. First, by the Father’ s eternal election. We are the Father’ s love-gift to the Son: "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world." Second, we are His by His own redemptive rights. He paid the purchase price. He bought us for Himself: "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." Third, we are His by the effectual call of the Holy Spirit. If any one be in Christ, he is a new creation, and we are created anew by the Third Person of the Holy Trinity: "born of the Spirit."  

"He loved them unto the end." Here is the care of the Good Shepherd for the sheep. Unto "the end" of what? Who can define it? First, unto the end of our earthly pilgrimage. We need the assurance of His love as we pass through this wilderness. We shall not need it when we see Him face to face and know as we are known. But we do need the full assurance of it now. And what a resting-place for the poor heart amid all the buffetings of this life— the bosom of the Savior! It is here that John turned (John 13:23), and it is blessedly accessible to us, in spirit. Yea, it is to maintain us in the unending enjoyment of our place there, that the Lord Jesus is here seen washing the disciples’ feet before He begins the long discourse which follows to the end of chapter 16. The love of Christ must be occupied about its objects, and this is what we see here. God is "light" (1 John 1:5), and God is "love" (1 John 4:16). In the first twelve chapters of this Gospel Christ is seen as light, revealing the Father, exposing men (John 1:7; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5). But now we behold Him (with "his own") as love (cf. John 13:34; 14:12; 15:9; 17:26, etc.). But mark it, it is a holy love. Divine love cannot allow that which is unclean. Therefore does the holy love of Christ begin by removing defilement from the feet of His disciples! Most blessed is this. We delight to contemplate the love which caused Him to lay down His life for us, but let us never lose sight of the present activities of it.  

"He loved them unto the end? Not only unto the last, but to the farthest extent of their need and of His grace. He knew that Philip would misunderstand Him, that three of them would sleep while He prayed and agonized, that Peter would deny Him, that Thomas would doubt Him, that all would "forsake him"— yet He "loved them unto the end"! And so it is with us, dear Christian reader. "His own" are the objects of HIS love; "unto the end" is the extent of His love. He loves us unto "the end" of our miserable failures, unto the "end" of our wanderings and backslidings, unto the "end" of our unworthiness, unto the "end" of our deep need.  

His love no end or measure knows,  

No change can turn its course;  

Eternally the same it flows  

From one eternal Source.  

The first part of our verse intimates two things about the Lord Jesus at this time: the Cross was before Him with all its horrors; the joy of returning to the Father was before Him with all its bliss; yet neither the fearful prospect of woe nor the hope of unspeakable rest and gladness shook His love for His own. He is the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever, therefore His love never varies. He is eternal, therefore has He loved us with an everlasting love. He is Divine, therefore is His love different from all others, passing human knowledge.  

"And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’ s son, to betray him" (John 13:2). What a fearful contrast! From love to hate; from the Savior to Satan; from "his own" to the traitor! The mention of Judas here seems to be for the purpose of enhancing the beauty of what follows. The Devil had full mastery over the heart of the betrayer: thus in figure the Cross was passed— Satan had accomplished his design.  

"Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God" (John 13:3) "These statements of Christ’ s Divine origin, authority, and coming glory, are made so as to emphasize the amazing condescension of the service to which He humbled Himself to do the office of a bondslave" (Companion Bible).  

"Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; he riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself" (John 13:3, 4). "It was not in forgetfulness of His Divine origin, but in full consciousness of it, He discharged this menial function. As He had divested Himself of the ‘ form of God’ at the first, stripping Himself of the outward glory attendant on recognized Deity; and had taken upon Himself ‘ the form of a servant,’ so now He laid aside His garment and girded Himself; assuming the guise of a household slave. For a fisherman to pour water over a fisherman’ s feet was no great condescension; but that He, in whose hands are all human affairs and whose nearest relation is the Father, should thus condescend, is of unparalleled significance. It is this kind of action that is suitable to One whose consciousness is Divine. Not only does the dignity of Jesus vastly augment the beauty of the action, but it also sheds new light on the Divine character" (Dr. Dods).  

Three things are to be carefully noted here as reasons why He washed His disciples’ feet on this occasion. First, He knew that His hour was come when He should depart out of this world (John 13:1); second, He loved His own unto the end (John 13:1); third, because all things had been given into His hands, and He that had come from God was returning to God— for these reasons He arose from the table and girded Himself with a towel. As we shall see, all of this finds its explanation in the Lord’ s words to Peter, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me" (John 13:8). For three years the disciples had had "a part" with Him. But now He was about to leave them; but before doing so He would assure them (and us) that His wondrous love continues undiminished and unchanged after His return to the Father. Christ began a service in the Glory which, in another manner, He will continue forever. The service in which He is now engaged is to maintain our "part" with Him.  

There has been much controversy as to what "supper" is referred to here in John 13. Most assuredly it was not the "Lord’ s Supper," for in John 13:26 we find Christ giving the "sop" to Judas, and the Synoptists make it unmistakably plain that this was at the paschal supper. The Lord’ s Supper receives no mention in the fourth Gospel. On this fact Bishop Ryle strikingly says, "I think it was specially intended to be a witness forever against the growing tendency of Christians to make an idol out of the sacraments. Even from the beginning there seems to have been a disposition in the Church to make a religion of forms and ceremonies rather than of heart, and to exalt outward ordinances to a place which God never meant them to fill. Against this teaching St. John was raised up to testify. The mere fact that in his Gospel he leaves out the Lord’ s Supper altogether, and does not even name it, is strong proof that the Lord’ s Supper cannot be, as many tell us, the first, chief, and principle thing in Christianity. His perfect silence about it can never be reconciled with this favorite theory. It is a most conspicuous silence, I can only see one answer: it is because it is not a primary, but a secondary thing in Christ’ s religion."  

"He riseth from supper." In the order of events this comes right after what we read of in John 13:1: the time-mark there being connected with Christ’ s action here. Evidently it was just before the beginning of the meal that the Lord Jesus rose from the table— the meal being the paschal one. It is important to note that John’ s narrative carries everything on in strict connection from this point to John 14:31, and then on to John 18:1: therefore this "supper" and Christ’ s discourse to His disciples was at once followed by the going forth to Gethsemane. The question of Peter in John 13:24 is inexplicable if the paschal supper had already taken place (as quite a number have insisted), for the Synoptists are explicit that our Lord named the betrayer during this meal. Most of the difficulty has been created by the first clause of John 13:2, which should be rendered, "when the supper arrived," i.e., was ready. Mark how that 13:12 shows us Christ resuming His place at the table.  

"He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments: and took a towel, and girded himself" (John 13:4). Everything here, we doubt not, has a deep symbolical meaning. The "supper" was the paschal one, and clearly spoke of Christ’ s death. The rising from supper and the laying aside of His garments (cf. John 20:6) pictured our Lord on the resurrection-side of the grave. The girding Himself speaks of service, the heavenly service in which He is now engaged on behalf of His people. It is a wonderful thing that the Lord never relinquished His servant character. Even which the modern advocates of the so-called sacramental system can never get over, or explain away. If the sacrament of the Lord’ s Supper really is the first and chief thing in Christianity, why does St. John tell us nothing about it? To that question after His return to the Glory He still ministers to us. Beautifully was this typified of old in connection with the Hebrew servant in Exodus 21. "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free . . . If the servant shall plainly say I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free, then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, and unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him forever" (verses 2-5, 6). This has been expounded at length in our "Gleanings in Exodus." Suffice it now to say that it affords us a most blessed foreshadowment of the perfect Servant. Christ will "serve forever." To-day He is serving us, applying the Word (by His Spirit) to our practical state, dealing with what unfits us for fellowship with Himself on high. Luke 12:37 gives us a precious word upon His future service: "Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them." And how will He "serve" us then? By ministering to our happiness and enjoyment as "His guests"!  

"After that he poureth water into a basin," etc. (John 13:5). Everything here is Divinely perfect. Seven distinct actions are attributed to the Savior: "He (1) riseth from supper, and (2) laid aside his garments, and (3) took a towel, and (4) girded himself. After that he (5) Poureth water into a basin, and (6) began to wash the disciples’ feet, and (7) to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded." It was their feet which He here proceeded to wash. Their persons were already cleansed. They had been brought out of Judaism, and a heavenly portion was now theirs— a place in the Father’ s House. But their conduct must be suited to that House. Their walk must be in accord with their heavenly calling. They must be kept clean in their ways.  

The water with which the Savior here cleansed the soiled feet of His disciples was an emblem of the Word: "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word" (Ps. 119:9). Fully and blessedly is this brought out in Ephesians 5:25, 26:"Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.""Every clause of this passage is found here in John 13. He ‘ loved’ them, the Church. He ‘ gave himself’ for them, the ‘ supper’ setting forth that: that He might ‘ sanctify,’ separate to Himself, thus they were ‘ his own’ ; and ‘ cleanse’ it with the washing of water by the Word. It is complete; His constant, perfect provision for our being kept clean" (Mr. Malachi Taylor). It is to be particularly observed that the Lord did not leave this work unfinished or half done: like a perfect servant, our Lord not only "washed" their feet, but He "wiped" them as well!  

"Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?" (John 13:6). Simon was ever blundering, and his sad faults and failings are recorded for our learning. "In Divine things the wisdom of the believer is subjection to Christ and confidence in Him. What He does we are called on to accept with thankfulness of heart, and as Mary said to the servants at the marriage-feast, ‘ Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.’ This Simon Peter did not, for when the Lord approached him in the form of a servant or bond-man, he demurred. Was there not faith ‘ working by love’ in Peter’ s heart? Both, undoubtedly, yet not then in action, but buried under superabundant feeling of a human order, else he had not allowed his mind to question what the Lord saw fit to do. He had rather bowed to Christ’ s love and sought to learn, as He might teach, what deep need must be in him and his fellows to draw forth such a lowly yet requisite service from his Master... Too self-confident and indeed ignorant not only of himself and the defiling scene around, but of the depths and constancy of Christ’ s love, Peter says to Him, ‘ Lord, dost thou wash my feet?’ Granting that he could not know what was not yet revealed, but was it comely of him, was it reverent, to question what the Lord was doing? He may have thought it humility in himself, and honor to the Lord, to decline a service so menial at His hands. But Peter should never have forgotten that as Jesus never said a word, so He never did an act save worthy of God and demonstrative of the Father; and now more than ever were His words and ways an exhibition of Divine grace, as human evil set on by Satan, not only in those outside, but within the innermost circle of His own, called for increased distinctness and intensity.  

"The truth is we need to learn from God how to honor Him, and learn to love according to His mind. And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know; this, too, was Peter’ s mistake. He should have suspected his thoughts, and waited in all submissiveness on Him who, as many confessed that knew far less than he did, ‘ hath done all things well,’ and was absolutely what He was saying, truth and love in the same blessed Person. The thoughts of God are never as ours, and saints slip into those of man, unless they are taught of God, by faith, in detail, too, as well as in the main; for we cannot, ought not, to trust ourselves in anything. God the Father will have the Son honored; and He is honored most when believed in and followed in His humiliation. Peter therefore was equally astray when he once ventured to rebuke the Lord for speaking of His suffering and death, as now when he asks, ‘ Dost thou wash my feet?

Combined Bible: Joh 13:12-20

of the Gospel of John   

CHAPTER 46   

Christ’ s Example For Us   

John 13:12-20   

The following is given as an Analysis of the second section of John 13:—   

1. Christ’ s searching question, verse 12.  

2. Christ’ s dignity and authority, verse 13.  

3. Christ’ s example for us to follow, verses 14, 15.  

4. Christ’ s warning against pride, verse 16.  

5. Christ’ s approval of practical godliness, verse 17.  

6. Christ’ s word about the Traitor, verses 18, 19.  

7. Christ’ s encouragement to His servants, verse 20.  

The opening portion of John 13 makes known the provision which Divine love has made for failure in our walk as we journey through this world-wilderness, and the means which are used to maintain us in fellowship with Christ. Its central design is stated by the Lord when He said to Peter, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." The washing of our feet is imperative if we are to enjoy fellowship with the Holy One of God. "Grace" has given us a place in Christ, now "truth" operates to maintain our place with Christ. The effect of this ministry is stated in verse 10: "He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit."  

There is a double washing for the believer: the one of his entire person, the other of his feet; the former is once for all, the latter needs repeating daily. In both instances the "washing" is by the Word. Of the former we read, "Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:10, 11). And again, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Spirit’ (Titus 3:5). The "washing of regeneration" is not by blood, though it is inseparable from redemption by blood; and neither the one nor the other is ever repeated. Of the latter we read, "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water By The Word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27). This same distinction was plainly marked in the Old Testament. When Aaron and his sons were consecrated, they were bathed all over (Ex. 29:4; Leviticus 8:6): but at the "laver" it was only their hands and feet which were daily cleansed (Ex. 30:19, 21).  

In our last chapter we pointed out how that the "blood" is Godward, the "water" saintwards. The one is for legal expiation, the other for moral purification. Now, while both the "bathing" (Titus 3:5) and the "washing" of the saints’ feet is by the "water of the word," there is a "cleansing" by blood— "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). But this "cleansing" is judicial, not experiential. The precious blood has not been applied to my heart, but it has cancelled my guilt. It has washed out the heavy and black account which was once against me on high. A "book of remembrance’’ is written before God (Mal. 3:16), but in it there is not left on record a single sin against any believer. Just as a damp sponge passed over a slate removes every chalk mark upon it, so the blood of Christ has blotted out every transgression which once was marked up against me. How deeply significant, then, to read that when the Roman soldier pierced the side of the dead Savior that "forthwith came there out blood and water" (John 19:34)! The blood for penal expiation, the water for moral purification. But mark the order: first, the "blood" to satisfy the demands of a holy God, then the "water" to meet the needs of His defiled people!  

The distinction between the bathing of the entire body and the washing of the feet was aptly illustrated by the ancient custom of bathers. A person returning from the public baths, was, of course, dean, and needed not to be re-bathed. But wearing only sandals, which covered but part of the feet, he quickly needed the foot-bath to cleanse himself from the dust of travel encountered on his way from the baths to his home. Even to-day bathers in the sea are often seen going to their dressing-room with a pail of water to cleanse their soiled feet. This may be regarded as a parable of the spiritual life. Believers were bathed, completely cleansed, at the new birth. The "dressing-room" is Heaven, where we shall be robed in white raiment and garments of glory. But the pail of water is needed for our present use in connection with the daily walk.  

In the second section of John 13 the Lord Jesus makes a practical application to the disciples of what He had just done for them. He intimates very plainly that,, there was a spiritual meaning in His washing of their feet: Know ye not what I have done to you?" He tells them expressly that they ought to wash one another’ s feet. If they shrank from such lowly service, He reminds them that none other than He, their Master and Lord, had done so much for them. He warns them that a theoretical knowledge of these things was of no value, unless it resulted in an actual carrying out of them: "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." Then He recurs again to the fact that one of their number must be excepted. The presence of the traitor seems to have cast a shadow upon Him, but He tells them beforehand that the Scriptures had predicted his defection, so that when the betrayer delivered up their Master into the hands of His enemies the faith of the other disciples might not falter. Finally, He encourages them with the assurance that whosoever received His servants received Himself, yea, received the One who had sent Him. What dignity that gave to their calling!  

"So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?" (John 13:12). It is important to note that it was from the "supper" that the Lord arose when He girded Himself for the washing of His disciples’ feet; to it He now returns. Typically, it was Christ’ s "leaving the place of communion, as if this were interrupted, until His necessary work for them should renew it once more. He rises, therefore, from supper, and girded Himself for a fresh service. His sacrificial work is over, the shedding of blood is no more needed, but only the washing of water; and here also not the ‘ bath of regeneration’ (Titus 3:5 Gk.), but simply as He pointed out to Peter, the washing of the feet. It is defilement contracted in the walk that is in question; and He puts Himself at their feet to wash them. As of old, Jehovah could say to Israel, ‘ Thou hast made me to serve with thy sins’ (Isa. 43:24), so may He still say to us; but His unchanging love is equal to all possible demands upon it. Notice here that all the disciples need it, and that thus He invites us all to-day to put our feet into His hands continually, that they may be cleansed according to His thought of what is cleanness, who alone is capable of judging according to the perfect standard of the Sanctuary of which He is indeed Himself the Light" (Numerical Bible).  

"So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?" This is the sequel to what we read of in John 13:4. There He had lain aside His outer garments, here He resumes them. We believe that the former act had a double symbolical meaning. First, we are told, "he riseth from supper": what supper is not here specified. Now, "supping" speaks of communion, therefore when we are told "he riseth from supper and laid aside his garments and took a towel and girded himself," the first and deepest meaning would be, He left His place on high, where from all eternity He had been the Father’ s delight, and with whom He had enjoyed perfect communion as the Son, but now divested Himself of His outward glory and took upon Him the form of a servant. But the "supper" is also the memorial of His death, hence the rising from it and the laying aside of His garments would suggest the additional thought of His resurrection. Now, we believe that the Lord’ s action here in John 13:12 connects with and is the sequel to the first thing pointed out above. The putting on of His garments and the sitting down again would typify His return to the Father’ s presence, the resumption of His original glory (John 17:5), and His resting on high.  

The Lord was about to explain (in part) and enforce what He had done unto the disciples. Before pondering what He had to say, let us first admire the calmness and deliberation which marked His actions. He quietly resumed His garments (there is no hint of the apostles offering to assist Him!) ere He seated Himself upon the couch or cushion, in His character of Teacher and Lord, thus giving His disciples time to recover from their surprise, collect their thoughts, and prepare themselves for what He was about to say. This gives additional meaning to His posture. Note that ere He began the "Sermon on the Mount" He first seated Himself (Matthew 5:1); so it was while seated in a ship (Matthew 13:2) He delivered the seven parables of the kingdom; so while He "sat upon the mount of Olives" (Matthew 24:3), He gave His longest prophetic announcement; so here He seated Himself before giving the great Paschal Discourse. The force of these notices is seen by comparing them with Luke 5:3: "He sat down and taught the people." Study the passages in John’ s Gospel where Jesus "stood," and then where He "walked"— see John 7:1 and our remarks.  

"So after he had washed their feet," that is, the feet of each of the twelve. "We may learn an important lesson here as to dealing with offenders in the assembly. The Lord knew all about Judas, and all he was doing, but treated him as one of the apostles, till he displayed himself. There may be suspicion about some individual, that all is not right with him; but mere suspicion will not suffice to act on. The matter must come clearly out, ere it can be rightly dealt with. Were this remembered, cases of discipline, instead of causing trouble in the assembly through lack of common judgment, would be clear to all unprejudiced persons, and the judgments of the assembly be accepted as correct. Has it not at times been the reverse?" (Mr. C. E. Stuart).  

"He said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?" Very searching was this. In washing the feet of His disciples He had not only displayed a marvellous humility, which He would have them take to heart, but He had eared for them in holy love. Not only had He saved them, but He was concerned about their fellowship with Himself, and for this, strict attention must be paid to the walk. For when the feet are soiled, the dust of this world must be removed. In His question the Lord illustrates how that it is His way to teach us afterwards the good which He has already done for us; as we grow up in Him in the truth, we are enabled to enter into and appreciate more deeply what at first we understood but slightly. The same grace which brought salvation teaches us, that "denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope" (Titus 2:11, 12). Deeply humbling is it to discover how little we understood the love and the grace which had been acting on our behalf.  

"Know ye what I have done to you?" "This is a question which we should often put to ourselves respecting what our Lord says, and what He does to us. None of His works are ‘ the unfruitful works of darkness.’ They are all full of meaning. They are all intended to serve a purpose, and a good one;, and it is of importance, in most cases, that we should be aware of it. If we look at His work in the light of His Word, and seek the guidance of His good Spirit, we shall generally be able to discern His wise and benign purpose, even in dispensations at first sight very strange and mysterious. He only can explain His intentions, and He will not suffer His humble, enquiring disciples to remain ignorant of them, if it be for their real benefit to know them" (Dr. John Brown).  

"Ye call me Master and Lord: and )re say well; for so I am" (John 13:13). Beautifully does this bring out the fact that the Lord Jesus is "full of grace and truth." Though He had lust fulfilled for His disciples the most menial office of a slave, yet He had not abandoned the place of authority and supremacy. He reminds them that He is still their "Master and Lord," and that, by their own confession, for the word "call" here signifies address— "Ye address Me as Master and Lord." In thus owning the incarnate Son of God they "did well." Alas! that so many of His professing followers now treat Him with so much less respect than that which He here commended in the Twelve. Alas! that so many who owe their all for time and eternity to that peerless One who was "God manifest in flesh," speak of Him simply as "Jesus." Jesus is the Lord of glory, and surely it is due the dignity and majesty of His person that this should be recognized and owned, even in our very references to Him. We do not expect that those who despise and reject Him should speak of Him in any more exalting terms than "The Nazarene," or "Jesus"; but those who have been, by amazing grace, given "an understanding, that we may know him that is true" (1 John 5:20) ought gladly to confess Him as "The Lord Jesus Christ"!  

"Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." Surely this is sufficient for any humble-minded Christian. If our blessed Redeemer says we "say well" when we address Him as "Master and Lord," how can we afford to speak of Him in terms upon which His approval is not stamped? Never once do we find the apostles addressing Him as "Jesus" while He was with them on earth. When He exhorted them to make request of Him for an increase of laborers He bade them, "Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest" (Matthew 9:38). When He sent forth the disciples to secure the ass on which He was to ride into Jerusalem, He ordered them to say, "The Lord hath need of him" (Luke 19:31). When He required the use of the upper room, it was "The Lord saith, My time is at hand; I will therefore keep the passover at thy house" (Matthew 26:18).  

Above, we have said that the apostles never once addressed our Lord simply as "Jesus." Mark, now, how they did refer to the Blessed One. "And Peter answered him and said, LORD, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water" (Matthew 14:28). "And when his disciples James and John, saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?" (Luke 9:54). "And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?" (Matthew 26:22). "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed" (Luke 24:33, 34). "Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest" (John 14:5). "That disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord" (John 21:7).  

It may be objected that the Gospel narratives commonly refer to the Lord as "Jesus." It was Jesus who was led of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. It was Jesus who was moved with compassion as He beheld the sufferings and sorrows of humanity. It was Jesus who taught the people, etc. This is true, and the explanation is not far to seek. It was the Holy Spirit of God who, through the pens of the Evangelists, thus referred to Him, and this makes all the difference. What would be thought of one of the subjects of king George referring to the reigning monarch of Great Britian and saying, "I saw George pass through the city this morning"? If, then, it would be utterly incongruous for one of his subjects to speak thus of the king of England, how much more so is it to refer to the King of kings simply as Jesus! But now, king George’ s wife might refer to and speak of her husband as "George" with perfect propriety. Thus it is that the Holy Spirit refers to our Lord by His personal name in the Gospel narratives.  

Our modern hymns are largely responsible for the dishonor that is now so generally cast upon that "worthy name" (James 2:7), and we cannot but raise our voice in indignant protest against much of the trash (for such it is) that masquerades under the name of "hymns" and religious "songs." It is sad and shocking to hear Christians sing "There’ s not a friend like the lowly Jesus." There is no "lowly Jesus" to-day. The One who once passed through unparalleled humiliation has been "made both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36), and is now seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high. If the earnest student will turn to the four Gospels and note how different ones addressed the Son of God he will be well repaid. The enemies of Christ constantly referred to Him as Jesus (Matthew 26:71, etc.), and so did the demons (Mark 1:23, 24). Let us pray God to deliver us from this flippant, careless, and irreverent manner of speaking of His Blessed Son. Let us gladly own our Savior as "Lord" during the time of His rejection by the world. Let us remember His own words: "All should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" (John 5:23). This is no trivial or trifling matter, for it stands written, "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:37).  

"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet" (verse 14). "Master" means teacher. The "teacher" is believed; the "Lord" is obeyed. Here Christ proceeded to enforce and apply what He had just done unto them. The connection is obvious, not only with what precedes, but also with that which follows. If the Greatest could minister to the least, how much more should the lesser minister to his equal! If the Superior waited upon His admitted inferiors, much less should that inferior wait upon his fellows. And mark the premise from which He draws this conclusion. He did not say, "I am your teacher and Lord," but "Ye call me teacher and Lord." It was from the confession of their own lips that He now proceeds to instruct them. The order in which these titles occur is significant. First, these disciples had heard Christ as "teacher," and later they had come to know Him as their "Lord." But now Christ reverses the order: "If I then, your Lord and teacher." Why is this? Because this is the experimental order now. We must surrender to Him as "Lord," bowing to His authority, submitting to His yoke, before He will teach us!  

"Ye also ought to wash one another’ s feet" (John 13:14). So they ought, and why had they not already done so? The supper-room here was already supplied with water, pail, and towel. Why had not they used them? Luke 22:24 tells us, "And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest." This occurred, be it noted, at this very time. It was then that the Savior shamed them by saying, "For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as He that serveth" (Luke 22:27).  

"Ye also ought to wash one another’ s feet." Let us consider the application of these words to ourselves: "In discovering any stain that may be resting on the feet of our brethren, we are not to blind ourselves to its presence, or to hide from ourselves its character by calling evil good. If we are to be honest and faithful in respect of ourselves, we shall be equally honest and truthful in respect of others. On the other hand, we have to beware of looking on the sins and failures of our brethren with Pharisaic complacency and cold indifference. What condition is more awful than that one who finds his joy in searching out iniquities, and exulting in exposing and magnifying them when discovered? Such, indeed, have reason to remember that with whatsoever judgment they judge, they shall be judged; and that the measure they mete out to others shall be meted out to themselves again. How continually should we remind ourselves that the love of the same gracious Lord that is toward us is toward our brethren likewise, and that one of our chief privileges is the title to appeal to it and intercede on their behalf, asking that sins, even of deepest dye, may be removed; and that the deserved results of chastisement and sorrow might be averted. So we should not be as those who ‘ bite and devour one another,’ but be as those who ‘ wash one another’ s feet’ " (Mr. B. W. Newton).  

Yes, a most needful word is this for us all, ever ready as we are to lift up the skirts of a brother and say, "See how soiled his feet are"! But much exercise of soul, much judging of ourselves, is needed for such lowly work as this. I have to get down to my brother’ s feet if I am to wash them! That means that "the flesh" in me must be subdued. Let us not forget that searching word in Galatians 6:1, 2: "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’ s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." I must be emptied of all sense of self-superiority before I can restore one who is "out of the way." It is the love of Christ which must constrain me as I seek to be of help to one of those for whom He died. It is as "dear children" (Eph. 5:1) that we are called upon to be "imitators of God"! Very wonderful and blessed is what is here before us: when the Lord appoints on earth a witness of His ways in Heaven, He tells us to wash one another’ s feet, and to love one another (John 13:34). There must be a patient forbearing with our brother’ s faults, a faithful but tender applying of the Word to his particular case, and an earnest and daily intercession for him: these are the main things included in this figure of "washing." But let us not stop short at the "washing": there must be the "drying," too! The service when done must be regarded as a service of the Fast. The failure which called for it, is now removed, and therefore is to be buried in the depths of oblivion. It ought never to be cast against the individual in the future.  

"For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you" (John 13:15). It is well known that not a few have regarded this as a command from Christ for His followers now to practice literal foot-washing, yea, some have exalted it into a "Church ordinance." While we cannot but respect and admire their desire to obey Christ, especially in a day when laxity and self-pleasing is so rife, yet we are fully satisfied that they have mistaken our Lord’ s meaning here. Surely to insist upon literal foot-washing from this verse is to miss the meaning as well as the spirit of the whole passage. It is not with literal water (any more than the "water" is literal in John 3:5; 4:14; 7:38) that the Lord would have us wash one another. It is the Word (of which "water" is the emblem) He would have us apply to our fellow-disciples’ walk. This should not need arguing, but for the benefit of those who think that the Lord here instituted an ordinance which He would have practiced today, we would ask them to please weigh carefully the following points:  

That that which the Lord Jesus here did to His disciples looked beyond the literal act to its deep symbolic significance is clear from these facts: First, the Lord’ s word to Peter, "What I do thou knowest not now" (John 13:7): certainly Peter knew that his feet had been literally washed! Second, the further words of Christ to Peter, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me" (John 13:8): certainly there are multitudes of believers that have a part with Christ who have never practiced foot-washing as a religious ordinance. Third, His words, "Ye are clean, but not all" (John 13:10): Judas could never have been thus excepted if only literal foot-washing was here in view. Fourth, His question, "Know ye what I have done to you?" clearly intimates that the Lord’ s act in washing the feet of the disciples had a profound spiritual meaning. Fifth, note that here in John 13:15 the Lord does not say "Ye should do what I have done unto you," but "as I have done to you!" Add to these considerations the fact that this incident is found in John’ s Gospel, which is, pre-eminently, the one which treats of spiritual relationships under various figures— bread, water, Shepherd and sheep, vine and the branches, etc., and surely all difficulty disappears.  

"For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." We take it that the force of these words of Christ is this: I have just shown you how spiritual love operates: it ever seeks the good of its objects, and esteems no service too lowly to secure that good. It reminds us very much of the Lord’ s words following His matchless picture of the Good Samaritan who had compassion on the wounded traveler, dismounting, binding up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, setting him on His own beast, bringing him to the inn and taking care of him— "Go, and do thou likewise" (Luke 10:33-37). When real love is in exercise it will perform with readiness difficult, despised, and even loathsome offices. There are some services which are even more menial and repulsive than the washing of feet, yet, on occasion, the service of love may call for them. It should hardly be necessary to add, that Christians living in Oriental lands, where sandals are worn, should be ready to wash literally the feet of a weary brother, not simply as an act of courtesy, but as a service of love.  

"For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." We believe that one thing included in this comparative "as" is that it looks back to a detail in John 13:4 which is usually overlooked: it was as girded with a towel that Christ washed the feet of His disciples, and that which was signified by the "towel" applies to us. The "towel" was that with which Christ was girded: it bespoke the servant’ s attitude. Then the Lord used that with which He was girded upon their feet: emblematically, this was applying to them the humility which marked Him. Mr. Darby tells us that it was a linen towel which was employed, and in the New Testament "linen" signifies "the righteousness of saints" (Rev. 19:8, R.V.). It was His own spotless love which fitted Him to approach His disciples and apply the Word to them. How searching is all of this for us! If we would imitate Him in this labor of love we must ourselves be clothed with humility, we must employ nothing but the Word, and we must have on the linen towel of practical righteousness to dry with.  

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him"  

(John 13:16). The Lord acts as His own interpreter. He here gives plain intimation of the meaning of His symbolic action. He draws an important lesson from what He had just done, the more needful because He was about to withdraw from them. It would fare ill with His people if their leaders were found disputing among themselves, devouring one another. Surrounded as they were by Judaism and Paganism, lambs in the midst of wolves, much depended upon their humility and mutual helpfulness. Much needed by every Christian, and especially by those engaged in Christian service, is that word of Christ’ s, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart."  

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." That this is of more than ordinary importance is evidenced by the solemn and emphatic "Verily, verily" with which the Lord prefaced it. Moreover, the fact that at a later point in this same discourse the Lord said to His apostles, "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord" (John 15:20), shows that it is one which is specially needed by his ambassadors. How many a dark page of "Church History" had never been written if the ministers of Christ had heeded this admonition! How vain the pretensions of those who have lorded it over God’ s heritage in the light of this searching word! Sad indeed have been the manifestations of Nicolaitanism in every age. Even before the last of the apostles left this world he had to say, "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not" (3 John 9); and the same spirit is far from being dead today.  

"If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them" (John 13:17). If ye know what "things"? First, the vital need of placing our feet in the hands of Christ for cleansing (John 13:8). Second, the owning of Christ as "Master and Lord" (John 13:13). Third, the need of washing one another’ s feet (John 13:14). Fourth, the performing of this ministry as Christ performed it— in lowly love (John 13:15). Now, said our Savior, If ye know "these things," happy or blessed are ye if ye do them. A mere speculative knowledge of such things is of no value. An intellectual apprehension, without the embodiment of them in our daily lives, is worse than useless. It is both significant and solemn to note that the one Christ termed a wise man that built his house upon the rock is, "Whoso heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them" (Matthew 7:24). No one knows more truth than the Devil, and yet none works more evil!  

"If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." "It has been well remarked that our Lord does not say, ‘ Happy are ye if these things be done to you,’ but ‘ Happy are ye if ye do them.’ We are apt to suppose that we should be happy if men loved us, and were ready on every occasion to serve us. But, in the judgment of Christ, it would more conduce to our happiness that our hearts were like His, full of love to all our brethren, and our hands like His, ever ready to perform to them even the humblest offices of kindness. We often make ourselves unhappy by thinking that we are not treated with the deference and kindness to which we consider ourselves entitled. If we would be really happy, we must think more of others and less of ourselves. True happiness dwells within; and one of its leading elements is the disinterested self-sacrificing love which made the bosom of Jesus its constant dwelling-place" (Dr. John Brown).  

"I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen" (John 13:18). The immediate reference is to what the Lord had said in the previous verse. Just as in John 13:10 He had said to the twelve, "Ye are dean," and then added, "but not all," so after saying, "Happy are ye if ye do them," He at once says, "I speak not of you all." Faithfulness required Him to make an exception. There was no happiness for Judas; before him lay "the blackness of darkness for ever." When Christ said, "I know whom I have chosen" it is evident that He was not speaking of election to salvation, but to the apostolate. Where eternal election is in view the Scriptures uniformally ascribe it to God the Father. But where it is a question of ministry or service, in the New Testament, the choice and the call usually proceed from the Lord Jesus— see Matthew 9:30; Matthew 20:1; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:24; Acts 26:16; Ephesians 4:11, etc. His words here in John 13:18 are parallel with those in John 6:70: "Have not I chosen you twelve? and one of you is a devil?"  

"But that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me" (John 13:18). As to why the Lord Jesus chose Judas to be one of the twelve, see our remarks on John 6:70, 71. Very remarkable is this statement here in the light of the context. Christ had washed the feet of the very one whose heel was raised against Himself! Into what depths of humiliation did the Son of God deign to descend! He now foretells the defection of Judas, and announces that this was but the fulfillment of the prophetic Word. The reference is to the 41st Psalm, which exposes the awful character of the betrayer; the 109th Psalm makes known the outcome of his treachery. Christ then had suffered the traitor to remain with Him that the Scriptures might be fulfilled; but as soon as the "sop" had been given to Him, Christ would say, "That thou doest, do quickly" (John 13:27). "How wondrous the patience which, knowing all from the beginning, bore all to the end, without a frown or sign of shrinking from the traitor! But so much the more withering must be the sentence of judgment when it comes from His lips, the Lord of glory, the hated and despised of men" (Mr. W. Kelly).  

"He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me." The local reference in Psalm 41 is to what David suffered at the hands of Ahithophel, but that was but a foreshadowrnent and type of what the Savior suffered from Judas. In now quoting from this prophetic Psalm the Lord Jesus evidenced His Divine knowledge of what lay before Him, and testified to the inestimable value of the Scriptures. Nothing proves more conclusively their Divine origin than the accurate and literal fulfillment of their prophecies. Predictions were made of events which were not to transpire till hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of years afterwards, minute details are furnished, and the specific accomplishment of them can only be accounted for on the one ground that He who knows the end from the beginning was their Author.  

The wording of this prophecy about Judas is very striking. "His heel! the most contemptible rejection possible: was it not such to sell the Lord of glory for the price of a slave? It was as if he would inflict upon Christ the Serpent’ s predicted wound (Gen. 3:15)? (F. W. Grant.)  

"Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am" (John 13:19). What care did He evince for His own! What blessed proof was this of His loving them "unto the end"! Christ would here assure the disciples that everything which befell Him, even that which was most staggering to faith, was but the strict fulfillment of what had long ago been recorded. He was the great One typified and prophesied throughout the Old Testament, and He now assures the apostles of Judas’ perfidy before he went forth to bargain with the priests, that they might know He had not trusted in him, nor had He been deceived by him, as had David by Ahithophel! Thus, instead of the apostles being stumbled by the apostasy of one of their number, it should strengthen their faith in every written word of God to know that that very Word had long before announced what they were on the eve of witnessing. Moreover, their faith in Christ should be strengthened, too. By calling their attention to the fulfillment of Psalm 41 He showed them that He was the Person there marked out; that He was a true Prophet, announcing the certain accomplishment of David’ s prediction before it came to pass; and that He was the great "I am" who "searcheth the hearts and trieth the reins of the children of men," being fully acquainted with their secret thoughts and most carefully concealed designs.  

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (John 13:20). At first sight there appears to be no connection between this verse and the ones preceding, yet a little thought will soon discover the link between them. The Lord had been exhorting His disciples to follow the example which He had given, assuring them they would be happy if they did so. Then He announced the apostasy of Judas. Now He informs them that their vocation was by no means affected by the defection of the betrayer. "The whole circle of the apostles seemed to be disorganized by the treachery of Judas; and therefore the Lord confirms the faithful in their election, and that very fittingly by a repetition of that earlier promise (Matthew 10:42) on which all depended" (Stier). It was the Lord comforting His own and most graciously establishing their hearts by turning their attention away from the traitor to their Master, who abides forever the same, as does the Father.  

Judas had been one of the twelve whom the Lord had sent forth to preach the Gospel and to work miraculous signs in His name (Matthew 10). Would then all that he had done as an apostle be discredited, when his real character became known? This important question here receives answer from our Lord: "He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me." The Lord knew how apt His people are to despise the work done if the worker proves to be unworthy; therefore does He teach us to look beyond the instrument to the One who sent him. The Lord has the right to appoint whom He pleases. If, then, the message is from God’ s Word, reject it not because the messenger proves a fraud. What matters it to me whether the postman be black or white, pleasant or unpleasant, so long as he hands me the right letter?  

"He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." There is another important principle here. The apostles were the ambassadors of the Lord, and in the person of an ambassador the sovereign himself is received or set at naught. As His ambassadors, how circumspectly ought each of His servants to walk! And as His ambassadors, how dutiful and respectful in its reception should the Church be of them! As He was sent from the Father, so they were sent from Him. By this gracious analogy He arms them with authority and inspires them with courage. Thus the Lord fully identifies them with Himself.  

The following questions need studying to prepare for our next lesson:—   

1. What three things are dearly implied in verse 22?  

2. Why did not Peter ask the Lord directly, verse 24?  

3. Why did Jesus say to Judas, verse 27?  

4. In how many respects was the Son of man glorified at the Cross, verse 31?  

5. What attributes of Cod were glorified at the Cross, verse 31?  

6. In what sense was it a "new commandment," verse 34?  

7. What is the meaning of verse 36?  

  

Combined Bible: Joh 13:21-28

of the Gospel of John   

CHAPTER 47   

Christ’ s Warnings   

John 13:21-38   

Below is an Analysis of the passage which is to be before us:—   

1. The betrayer and his identification, verses 21-26.  

2. The departure of Judas and the thoughts of the Eleven, verses 27-30.  

3. A threefold glorification, verses 31-32.  

4. The new commandment, verse 34.  

5. The badge of Christian discipleship, verse 35.  

6. Peter’ s questions, verses 36-37.  

7. Christ’ s warning prediction, verse 38.  

We have entitled this chapter Christ’ s Warnings: it scarcely covers everything in the passage, yet it emphasizes that which is most prominent in it. At the beginning of our present section Christ warns Judas; at the close, He warns Peter. In between, there are some gracious and tender instructions for the beloved disciples, and these too partake very largely of the nature of warnings. He warns them against misinterpreting the nature of His death, John 13:31-32. He warns them of His approaching departure, John 13:33. He warns them of their need of a commandment that they should "love one another", John 13:34. He warns them that only by the exercise of love toward each other would it be made manifest that they were His disciples, John 13:35.  

Our passage opens with a solemn word identifying the Savior’ s betrayer. This betrayer had been plainly announced in Old Testament prophecy: "He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (Ps. 41:9). "A man’ s foes," said the Lord, "are they of his own household" (Matthew 10:36), and fearfully was this verified in His own case. A "familiar friend" became a familiar fiend. How this exposes the error of those who suppose that all that fallen man needs is example and instruction. Judas enjoyed both, yet was not his evil heart moved. For three years had he been not only in the closest possible contact, but in the nearest intimacy with the Savior. His had been a favored place in the innermost circle of the Twelve. Not only had he listened to the daily preaching of Christ as He taught the people, not only had he witnessed most, at least, of His wondrous miracles, but he had also gazed upon the perfections of Christ in His private life. And yet, after all this, Judas was unmoved and unchanged. Nothing could more forcefully demonstrate our Lord’ s utterance, "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God"! So near to Christ, yet unsaved! What a challenge for every heart!  

The case of Peter points a most solemn warning of quite another character. Outwardly Judas posed as a disciple of Christ; inwardly Simon was a believer in Him. The one exhibits the sin and madness of hypocrisy; the other the danger and sad results of self-confidence. It was to Peter that the Lord said, "The spirit (the new nature) indeed is willing, but the flesh (the natural man) is weak." But this utterance was never intended as an excuse, behind which we might take refuge when we fail and fall; but was given as a lasting warning to have "no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3). The Holy Spirit has faithfully recorded the sad defection of one who was especially dear to the heart of the Savior, that all Christians who follow Him might seek grace from God to avoid the snare into which he fell.  

From a human view, Peter failed at his strongest point. By nature he was bold and courageous. Probably there was not a stouter heart among the apostles. He quailed not before the marvellous scene on the Mount of Transfiguration. He it was who stepped out of the ship and started to walk across the waves to Christ. And he it was who drew his sword in the Garden, and smote the high priest’ s servant as the officers arrested his beloved Master. No coward was Peter. And yet he trembled in the presence of a maid, and when taxed with being a disciple of Christ, denied it with an oath! How is this to be explained? Only on the ground that in order to teach him and us the all-important lesson, that if left to ourselves, the strongest is as weak as water. It is in conscious weakness that our strength lies (2 Cor. 12:10). Peter was fully assured that though all should be offended yet would not he (Mark 14:29). And, without a doubt, he fully meant what he said. But he did not know himself; he had not learned, experientially, the exceeding deceitfulness of the human heart; he knew not as yet that without the upholding power and sustaining grace of the Lord he could do nothing (John 15:5). O that we might learn from him.  

"We fancy sometimes, like Peter, that there are some things we could not possibly do. We look pityingly upon others who fall, and plume ourselves in the thought that at any rate we should not have done so. We know nothing at all. The seeds of every sin are latent in our hearts, even when renewed, and they only need occasion, or carelessness, or the withdrawal of God’ s grace for a season, to put forth an abundant crop. Like Peter, we think we can do wonders for Christ, and like Peter, we learn by bitter experience that we have no might and power at all. A humble sense of our own innate weakness, a constant dependency on the Strong for strength, a daily prayer to be held up, because we cannot hold up ourselves— these are the true secrets of safety" (Bishop Ryle). Surely the outstanding lesson for us in connection with the fall of Peter is this: "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor. 10:12).  

"When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me" (John 13:21). The Lord had been ministering to His disciples, teaching and comforting them. He had spoken of their future, but in the midst of these anticipations a dark shadow falls upon Him, troubling Him. Already had He hinted at it, now He proceeds to testify more plainly to the traitor who was among the Twelve. The Lord was "troubled in spirit." It is remarkable that this is mentioned most frequently by the very Evangelist whose special design it was to portray the Lord Jesus as God manifest in flesh— cf. John 11:33, 38; 12:27. These statements prove the reality of His humanity, showing that He had a real human soul as well as body. They also prove that it is no infirmity or imperfection to be troubled by the presence of evil. Christ was no stoic: He felt keenly all that was contrary to God. Really, none was so truly and so completely sensitive as He. He was the Man of sorrows, and it is just because He has Himself passed through this scene, suffering within at every step of the way, that He is able to be touched with "the feeling of our infirmities."  

"When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me." It is well to remind ourselves that what the Lord Jesus endured upon the Cross was but the climax and completion of His sufferings. Throughout His life He suffered at the hands of Satan, His enemies, and His friends. He felt acutely the unbelief and hostility of the scribes and Pharisees. His tearful lament over Jerusalem evidences the depths of His anguish over Israel’ s rejection. Here it was the bitter sorrow of seeing one of the apostles deliberately becoming an apostate. Nothing wounds more deeply than ingratitude; and that one, who had been a constant companion with Him for three years, should now raise his heel against Him, was a sore trial. If Judas was unmoved, the Lord was not. Seeing no beauty in Christ after all he had heard and witnessed during years of closest contact with Him, unaffected by His marvellous grace to sinners, caring only for paltry gain, dominated by self, and the rebuke he had received in Simon’ s house rankling within, he turned against his Master and arranged to sell Him to His enemies. No wonder the Lord was "troubled" as He thought of such deceit, treachery, and cupidity. He had said "Ye are clean, but not all," and still Judas retained his place, and gave no sign of retiring.  

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me." There is a melancholy emphasis on the pronoun here: one of you at the table with Me; one of you whose feet I have just washed; one of you who have had the high honor of being My first ambassadors, shall take advantage of your intimacy with Me and knowledge of My ways, to guide the enemy to My place of retirement, and deliver Me into the hands of those who seek My life. He was "troubled" by the enormity of the crime, and no doubt, too, over the awful doom which lay before Judas.  

How deeply "troubled" the Savior was we may learn from His words in Psalm 55: "Wickedness is in the midst thereof: deceit and guile depart not from her streets. For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me;, then I would have hid myself from him: But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together and walked unto the house of God in company" (verses 11-14). How vividly this brings out before us the grief with which the Man of sorrows was "acquainted"! How deeply His holy soul was stirred, we may learn from the solemn but righteous imprecations which He called down upon the base ingrate in Psalm 109: "Let his days be few; and let another take his office; let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow" (verses 8, 9), etc.  

"Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake" (John 13:22). Three things are made very evident by this verse: one thing about the disciples, one about Judas, and one about the Lord Himself. First, it is plain that what Christ had said in John 13:18 had made no impression upon the Eleven. And this was the most natural. No doubt their minds were so occupied with what the Savior had just done for them that they had scarcely recovered from their surprise. They were so impressed by His amazing condescension that His statement "He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" fell upon ears that heeded Him not. But now He speaks more plainly and directly, and they exchanged puzzled glances with each other, wondering which of them it was to whom He had referred.  

Second, the fact that "The disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake" is proof positive that Judas had succeeded in concealing his turpitude from his fellows. His outward conduct had given the other apostles no occasion to suspect him. To what lengths cannot hypocrisy go! Matthew tells us that when Christ announced to the Twelve that one of them should betray Him, "They were exceedingly sorrowful, and began every one of them to say, Lord, is it I?" (Matthew 26:22), upon which Matthew Henry says: "They are to be commended for their charity, in that they are more jealous of themselves than of each other. It is the law of charity to hope the best, because we assuredly know, therefore we may justly expect, more evil of ourselves than of our brethren. They are also to be commended for their acquiescence in what Christ said. They trusted, as we would do well to do, more to His words, than to their own hearts, and therefore do not say, ‘ It is not— it cannot be— I’ ; but ‘ Lord, is it I?’ See if there be such a way of wickedness, such a root of bitterness in me, and discover it to me, that I may pluck up the root, and stop up that way." Boldly playing his role of duplicity to the last, Judas dares to ask, "Master, is it I?" (Matthew 26:25)— a clear proof, though, that he was unsaved, for no man can say Lord Jesus but by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3).  

Third, the fact that the apostles were perplexed, wondering to whom the Lord had referred, brings out most blessedly the infinite patience with which Christ had borne with the son of perdition. Throughout His ministerial life He must have treated Judas with the same condescending grace, gentleness, kindness, as the Eleven. He could not have exhibited any aversion against him, or the others would have noticed it, and known now of whom He spake. How this tells of the perfections of our Savior! His kindness ill-requited, His favors unappreciated, His holy soul loathing such a sink of iniquity so near to Him— yet He bowed to the sovereign will and authoritative word of the Father, and patiently bore this trial.  

"Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23). Here is one of those striking contrasts in which this Gospel abounds, and a most blessed one it is. Our attention is diverted for a moment from the base treachery and horrible hatred of Judas to one whom Christ had attracted, whose heart had been won by His beauty, and who now affectionately reposed on the Savior’ s breast. It is blessed, and an evident mark of the Holy Spirit’ s guidance to see how John here refers to himself. It was not "one who loved Jesus," though truly he did; but "one of his disciples whom Jesus loved." Nor does he mention his own name— love never advertises itself.  

"Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake" (John 13:24). This is one of many statements in the New Testament which effectually disposes of the Roman Catholic figment that Peter was the pope of the apostolate. As one of the older Protestant writers well said, "So far from Peter having any primacy among the apostles, he here uses the intercession of John." There was no doubt a moral reason why Peter put his question through John, instead of asking it direct. Is it not clear from John 13:6, 8, 37 that Peter’ s state of soul was not altogether right before God? And, does not his fearful fall, that very evening, supply still further proof? Matthew tells us that after the arrest of the Savior, Peter "followed him afar off unto the high priests’ palace" (Matthew 26:38), and a sense of distance began to make itself felt in Peter’ s soul even here— there was a measure of reserve between himself and the Lord.  

"He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?" (John 13:25). The contrast here between John and Peter is very noticeable. John was close to the Lord: affection had drawn him there. He was so near to Christ and his spirit so unclouded, he could look up into the face of the Savior and ask Him any question. This is the blessed portion and privilege of every Christian. Alas! that so many are like Peter on this occasion— ready to turn to a brother, rather than to the Lord Himself. Why is it that when the average Christian meets with some difficulty in his reading of the Word, or some problem in his spiritual life, he says, "I will ask or write brother so-and-so?" Why not enjoy the blessed privilege of referring directly to the Lord Jesus? It is a question of intimacy with Him, and that is very searching. While there is any self-confidence, as in Peter’ s ease, or any known hindrance in my spiritual life, that at once places me at a moral distance from Christ. But is it not blessed to see that, at the end, Peter came to the same place which John is seen occupying here? "And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee" (John 21:17). He threw open his heart. What was it but saying, Lord, there was a time when I would not ask You questions, but now I can invite You to look into my heart! Let us then come before Him now, asking Him to search our hearts and put His finger on anything that hinders us from having direct access to Him in everything. Let us ever be on the watch that we do not enjoy a greater intimacy with some brother than with the Lord Himself.  

"Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it" (John 13:26). It seems clear from what follows that these words of Christ must have been whispered to John or spoken in such a low tone that the other disciples were unable to catch them. At last the Lord Jesus identified the betrayer. The mask of hypocrisy which he had worn had thoroughly deceived the apostles, but He with whom "all things are naked and open" cannot be imposed upon. While man looked on the outward appearance, He looks upon the heart; so He now unmasks the false disciple, and shows him to be— what He always knew, though none else suspected that he was— a traitor.  

"And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon" (John 13:26). The sign given by Christ to identify the betrayer was suggestive and solemn. "It was a mark of honor for the host to give a Portion to one of the guests. The Lord had appealed to the conscience of Judas in John 13:21, now He appeals to his heart" (Companion Bible). The "sop" was, most probably, a piece of unleavened bread, now dipped in the sauce prepared for the eating of the paschal lamb. That Judas accepted it shows the unthinkable lengths to which he carried his hypocrisy. Determined as he was to perpetrate the foulest treachery, yet he hereby renews his pledge of friendship. It’ makes us think of the "Hail Master" and the "kiss" when he was in the act of delivering Him to His enemies. But how wonderful, how blessed, the meekness of our Lord; surely none but He could have acted thus. In complete command of Himself, no sign of ill-will toward the one who had already taken counsel with the chief priests, He gives him the sop. Closely did this correspond with the prophetic declaration already referred to, "He that eateth with me hath lifted up his heel against me."  

"And after the sop Satan entered into him" (John 13:27). The receiving of the sop, expressive of friendship, ought to have broken him down in an agony of repentance; but it did not. He was like those mentioned in Hebrews 6:8: ground on which the rain came oft, but which instead of bringing forth herbs, bore only thorns and briars, whose end is to be burned. It is remarkable to note that not until now are we told of Satan’ s entrance into him. Equally striking is it to observe that as soon as he had received the "sop" the Enemy took full possession of his only too willing victim.  

"Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly" (John 13:27). Fearful words were these. Space for repentance had now passed forever. His doom was sealed. But what else lay behind these words of Christ? We believe it was the formal announcement of the Savior surrendering Himself to the Father’ s will. It was as though He said, I am ready to be led as a lamb to the slaughter; go, Judas, and do that which you are so anxious to do; I will not withstand thee! But again; may we not regard this word of Christ as in one sense parallel with the one He had addressed to the Devil at the close of the great temptation. There was a needs-be for Him to be tempted of the Devil for forty days; but when that needs-be was fully met, He said, "Get thee hence, Satan" (Matthew 4:10). So, in order that Scripture might be fulfilled, it was necessary for there to be a Judas in the apostolate, so that he could eat with Christ. But now that prophecy had been accomplished, now that the traitor’ s heel had been lifted against his Master, Christ says, "Depart"! Moreover, was not this the formal dismissal of Judas from the Lord’ s service? Christ had called him to a place in the apostolate: for three years He had used him: now He announces his discharge; later, another shall "take his bishoprick." Finally, we believe it can be established from the other Gospels that it was right after this that the Lord instituted His own "supper" as a lasting memorial of Himself; but before doing so He first banishes the traitor, for that "supper" is for His own only.  

"Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him" (John 13:28). At this point John, at least, and most probably Peter also, knew who it was who should betray their beloved Master, yet in the light of this verse it is evident that none of them suspected that the act of treachery was so soon to be perpetrated. None of them perceived the awfulness of the issues then pending.  

"For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor" (John 13:29). "These thoughts of the disciples were mistaken ones, but they do them no discredit. They are excusable and even praiseworthy. They indicate the operation of the charity which thinketh no evil, but is ever disposed to put on words and actions the most favorable construction they will reasonably admit. The mistakes of charity are wiser and better than the surmises of censoriousness, even when they turn out to be according to the truth. Judas had all along been a bad man; but hitherto he had given no such evidence of his unprincipled character as would have warned his fellow-disciples to entertain suspicions of him. Knowing that he was the treasurer and steward of this little society, they supposed that the words of the Master might refer to his speedily obtaining something which would be requisite for the feast of the passover, which lasted for a week; that he should immediately give some alms to the poor.  

"It is plain from these words that our Lord and His disciples were in the habit of giving, especially at the time of the great festivals, out of their scanty pittance, something to those more destitute than themselves. Their ‘ deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality’ : and by His example He has taught us not merely that it is the duty of those who may have but little to spare to give of that little to those who have still less, but that religious observances are gracefully connected with deeds of mercy and alms-giving. He joined humility with piety in His practice as well as in His doctrine; and in this He hath left us an example that we should follow His steps" (Dr. John Brown). To these remarks we may add that the fact the disciples had supposed Judas had gone to purchase things for "the feast" is clear proof that the Lord did not work miracles in order to procure the food needed by Himself and His apostles. It also shows that they did not beg, but managed their temporal affairs with prudence and economy (cf. John 4:8).  

But far different were the base designs of Judas from what the apostles had charitably supposed. "It was not to buy things needful, but to sell the Lord and Master; it was no preparation for the feast, but that to which it, not they, had ever looked onward— the fulfillment of God’ s mind and purpose in it, though it were the Jews crucifying their own Messiah, by the hands of lawless men; it was not that Judas should give to the poor, but that He should who was rich yet for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich" (Bible Treasury).  

"He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night" (John 13:30). There is something more here, something deeper, than a mere reference to the time of the day. As Judas went forth on his dastardly errand, there then began that "hour" of the Power of darkness (Luke 22:53), when God suffered His enemies to put out the Light of life. So, too, it was "night" in the soul of Judas, for he had turned his back on "the light." Like Cain he went out from the "presence of the Lord"; like Baalim he loved "the wages of unrighteousness"; like Ahithophel he went to betray his "familiar friend." It was night: "Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil": fitting time was it, then, for the son of perdition to perpetrate his dark deed! "Immediately" he went: his feet were "swift to shed blood"!  

"Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified" (John 13:31). A most remarkable word was this. The Lord Jesus spoke of His death, but He regarded it neither as a martyrdom nor as a disgrace. There is nothing quite like this in the other Gospels. Here, as ever, John gives us the highest, the Divine viewpoint of things. The Savior contemplates His death on the shameful tree as His glorification. "It seems very strange that, in these circumstances, Jesus should say, ‘ Now— now is the Son of man glorified.’ It would not have been wonderful if, on the banks of Jordan after His baptism, with the mystic dove descending and abiding on Him, and the voice of the Eternal pealing from the open heaven, ‘ This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’ ; or, on the summit of the Mount of Transfiguration, when ‘ His face did shine as the sun, and His garments became white as the light,’ and Moses and Elijah appeared with Him in glory, and a voice came forth from the cloud of glory. ‘ This is my beloved Son, hear him,’ our Lord had said, in holy exaltation, ‘ Now is the Son of man glorified’ ! But, when these words were spoken, what was before the Redeemer but the deepest abasement, and the severest sufferings— heavy accusations— a condemnatory sentence— insults— infamy— the fellowship of thieves— the agonies of death— the lonely sepulcher! How does He, in these circumstances, say, ‘ Now is the Son of man glorified’ " (Dr. John Brown).  

But wherein was Christ’ s death on the Cross His glorification? Notice, first, that He said, "Now is the Son of man glorified." It was the Son of God as incarnate who was "glorified" on the Cross. But how? Wherein? First, in that He there performed the greatest work which the whole history of the entire universe ever witnessed, or ever will witness. For it the centuries waited; to it the centuries look back. Second, because there He reversed the conduct of the first man. The first Adam was disobedient unto death, the last Adam was obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. The glory of man is to glorify God; and never was God more glorified than when His own incarnate Son laid down His life in submission to His command (John 10:18); and never was human nature so glorified as when the Son of man thus glorified God. Third, because through death He destroyed him who had the power of death, that is the devil (Heb. 2:14). What a notable achievement was this, that One made in the likeness of sin’ s flesh should accomplish the utter defeat of the arch-enemy of God and man! Fourth, because at the Cross was paid the ransom-price which purchased for Himself all the elect of God. What glory for the Son of man was this, that He should do what none other in all the realm of creation could do (through immeasurable suffering and shame)— "bring many sons unto glory." The manner in which He wrought this work also glorified Him: He was a willing sufferer; the price was cheerfully paid; He was led, not driven, as a lamb to the slaughter; He endured the Cross, despising the shame; and not until offended justice and a broken law were fully satisfied did He cry, "It is finished." Finally, by virtue of His Cross-work, a glory was acquired by the Mediator: there is now a glorified Man at God’ s right hand (John 17:22). "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:10).  

"And God is glorified in him" (John 13:31). What a theme! One which no human pen can begin to do justice to. The Cross-work of Christ was not only the basis of our salvation, and the glorification of the Son of man Himself, but it was also the brightest manifestation of the glory of God. Every attribute of Deity was superlatively magnified at Calvary.  

The power of God was exceedingly glorified at the Cross. There the kings of the earth and the rulers took counsel together against God and against His Christ; there the terrible enmity of the carnal mind and the desperate wickedness of the human heart did their worst; there the fiendish malignity of Satan was put forth to its fullest extent. But God had laid help upon One that is mighty (Ps. 89:19). None was able to take His life from the Savior (John 10:18). After man and Satan had done their worst, the Lord Jesus remained complete master of Himself, and not until He saw fit did He lay down His life of Himself: never was the power of God more illustriously displayed. Christ was crucified "through weakness" (2 Cor. 13:4), offering no resistance to His enemies: but it is written, "The weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor. 1:25), and gloriously was that demonstrated at the Cross, when the power of God sustained the humanity of Christ as He endured His outpoured wrath.  

The justice of God was exceedingly glorified at the Cross. Of old He declared that He "will by no means clear the guilty" (Ex. 34:7), and when the Lord laid on our blessed Substitute "the iniquities of us all" He hung there as the Guilty One. And God is so strictly and immutably just that He would not spare His own Son when He had made Him to be sin for us. He would not abate the least mite of that debt which righteousness demanded. The penalty of the broken law must be enforced, even though it meant the slaying of His well Beloved. Therefore did the cry go forth, "Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the Shepherd" (Zech. 13:7). The justice of God was more illustriously glorified by the propitiation which was made by the Lord Jesus than if every member of the human race were to suffer in Hell forever.  

The holiness of God was exceedingly glorified at the Cross. He is "of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity" (Hab. 1:13), and when Christ was "made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13) the thrice Holy One turned away from Him. It was this which caused the agonizing Savior to cry, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Never did God so manifest His hatred of sin as in the sufferings and death of His Only-begotten. There He showed it was impossible for Him to be at peace with that which had raised its defiant head against Him. All the honor due to the holiness of God by all the holy angels, and all the cheerful obedience and patient suffering of all the holy men who have ever existed, or ever will exist, are nothing in comparison with the offering of Christ Himself in order that every demand of God’ s holiness, which sin had outraged, might be fully met.  

The faithfulness of God was exceedingly glorified at the Cross. God had sworn, "The soul that sinneth it shall die," and when the Sinless One offered to receive the full and fearful wages of sin, God showed to all heaven and earth that He had rather that the blood of His Fellow be spilt than that one tittle of the Word should fail. In the Scriptures He had made it known that His Son should be led as a lamb to the slaughter, that His hands and His feet should be pierced, that He should be numbered with transgressors, that He should be wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. These and many other predictions received their exact fulfillment at Calvary, and their accomplishment there supplied the greatest proof of all that God cannot lie.  

The love of God was exceedingly glorified at the Cross. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3:16). "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). "The light of the sun is always the same, but it shines brightest at noon. The Cross of Christ was the noon-tide of everlasting love— the meridian-splendor of eternal mercy. There were many bright manifestations of the same love before; but they were like the light of the morning that shines more and more unto the perfect day; and that perfect day was when Christ was on the Cross, and darkness covered all the land" (McLaurin).  

O when we view God’ s grand design,  

To save rebellious worms,  

How vengeance and compassion join  

In their sublimest forms!  

Our thoughts are lost in rev’ rent awe—   

We love and we adore;  

The first archangel never saw  

So much of God before!  

Here each Divine perfection joins,  

And thought can never trace,  

Which of the glories brightest shines—   

The justice or the grace.  

"If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him" (John 13:32). "This verse may be paraphrased as follows: ‘ If God the Father be specially glorified in all His attributes by My death, He shall proceed at once to place special glory on Me, for My personal work, and shall do it without delay, by raising Me from the dead, and placing Me at His right hand.’ It is the same idea that we have in the seventeenth chapter more fully. ‘ I have glorified thee on the earth; now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self

Maclaren: Joh 13:1

The Love Of The Departing Christ

When Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end.'--John 13:1.

The latter half of St. John's Gospel, which begins with these words, is the Holy of Holies of the New Testament. Nowhere else do the blended lights of our Lord's superhuman dignity and human tenderness shine with such lambent brightness. Nowhere else is His speech at once so simple and so deep. Nowhere else have we the heart of God so unveiled to us. On no other page, even of the Bible, have so many eyes, glistening with tears, looked and had the tears dried. The immortal words which Christ spoke in that upper chamber are His highest self-revelation in speech, even as the Cross to which they led up is His most perfect self-revelation in act.

To this most sacred part of the New Testament my text is the introduction. It unveils to us gleams of Christ's heart, and does what the Evangelists very seldom venture to do, viz. gives us some sort of analysis of the influences which then determined the flow and the shape of our Lord's love.

Many good commentators prefer to read the last words of my text, He loved them unto the uttermost' rather than unto the end'--so taking them to express the depth and degree rather than the permanence and perpetuity of our Lord's love. And that seems to me to be by far the worthier and the nobler meaning, as well as the one which is borne out by the usual signification of the expression in other Greek authors. It is much to know that the emotions of these last moments did not interrupt Christ's love. It is even more to know that in some sense they perfected it, giving even a greater vitality to its tenderness, and a more precious sweetness to its manifestations. So understood, the words explain for us why it was that in the sanctity of the upper chamber there ensued the marvellous act of the foot-washing, the marvellous discourses which follow, and the climax of all, that High-priestly prayer. They give utterance to a love which Christ's consciousness at that solemn hour tended to shapen and to deepen.

So, under the Evangelist's guidance, we may venture to gaze at least a little way into these depths, and with all reverence to try and see something at all events of the fringe and surface of the love which passeth knowledge.' Jesus, knowing that His hour was come, that He should depart out of the world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, loved them then unto the uttermost.'

My object will be best accomplished by simply following the guidance of the words before us, and asking you to look first at that love as a love which was not interrupted, but perfected by the prospect of separation.

I. He Knew That His Hour Was Come.

It would take us much too far away, however interesting the contemplation might be, to dwell with any particularity upon our Lord's consciousness as it is here set forth in that He knew that His hour was come, that He should depart out of the world unto the Father.' But I can scarcely avoid noticing, though only in a few sentences, the salient points of that Christ-consciousness as it is set forth here.

He knew that His hour was come.' All His life was passed under the consciousness of a divine necessity laid upon Him, to which He lovingly and cheerfully yielded Himself. On His lips there are no words more significant, and few more frequent, than that divine I must!' It behoves the Son of Man' to do this, that, and the other--yielding to the necessity imposed by the Father's will, and sealed by His own loving resolve to be the Saviour of the world. And in like manner, all through His life He declares Himself conscious of the hours which mark the several crises and stages of His mission. They come to Him and He discerns them. No external power can coerce Him to any act till the hour come. No external power can hinder Him from the act when it comes. When the hour strikes He hears the phantom sound of the bell; and, hearing, He obeys. And thus, at the last and supreme moment, to Him it dawned unquestionable and irrevocable. How did He meet it? Whilst on the one hand there was the shrinking of which we have such pathetic testimony in the broken prayer that He Himself amended--Father I save Me from this hour! Yet for this cause came I unto this hour,' --there is a strange, triumphant joy, blending with the shrinking, that the decisive hour is at last come.

Mark, too, the form which the consciousness took--not that now the hour had come for suffering or death or bearing the sins of the world--all which aspects of it were nevertheless present to Him, as we know; but that now He was soon to leave all the world beneath Him and to return to the Father.

The terror, the agony, the shame, the mysterious burden of a world's sins were now to be laid upon Him--all these elements are submerged, as it were, and become less conspicuous than the one thought of leaving behind all the limitations, and the humiliations, and the compelled association with evil which, like a burning brand laid upon a tender skin, was an hourly and momentary agony to Him, and soaring above them all, unto His own calm home, His habitation from eternity with the Father, as He had been before the world was. How strange this blending of shrinking and of eagerness, of sorrow and of joy, of human trembling consciousness of impending death, and of triumphant consciousness of the approach of the hour when the Son of Man, even in His bitterest agony and deepest humiliation, should, paradoxically, be glorified, and should leave the world to go unto the Father'!

We cannot enter with any particularity or depth into this marvellous and unique consciousness, but it is set forth here--and that is the point to which especially I desire to turn your attention--as the basis and the reason for a special tenderness softening His voice, and taking possession of His heart, as He thought of the impending separation.

And is that not beautiful? And does it not help us to realise how truly bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh,' and bearing a heart thrilling with all innocent human emotions that divine Saviour was? We, too, have known what it is to feel, because of approaching separation from dear ones, the need for a tenderer tenderness. At such moments the masks of use and wont drop away, and we are eager to find some word, to put our whole souls into some look, our whole strength into one clinging embrace that may express all our love, and may be a joy to two hearts for ever after to remember. The Master knew that longing, and felt the pain of separation; and He, too, yielded to the human impulse which makes the thought of parting the key to unlock the hidden chambers of the most jealously guarded heart, and let the shyest of its emotions come out for once into the daylight. So, knowing that His hour was come, He loved them unto the uttermost.'

But there is not only in this a wonderful expression of the true humanity of the Christ, but along with that a suggestion of something more sacred and deeper still. For surely amidst all the parting scenes that the world's literature has enshrined, amidst all the examples of self-oblivion at the last moment, when a martyr has been the comforter of his weeping friends, there are none that without degradation to this can be set by the side of this supreme and unique instance of self-oblivion. Did not Christ, for the sake of that handful of poor people, first and directly, and for the rest of us afterwards, of course, secondarily and indirectly, so suppress all the natural emotions of these last moments as that their absolute absence is unique and singular, and points onwards to something more, viz. that this Man who was susceptible of all human affections, and loved us with a love which is not merely high above our grasp, absolute, perfect, changeless and divine, but with a love like our own human affection, had also more than a man's heart to give us, and gave us more, when, that He might comfort and sustain, He crushed down Himself and went to the Cross with words of tenderness and consolation and encouragement for others upon His lips? Knowing all that was lying before Him, He was neither absorbed nor confounded, but carried a heart at leisure to love even then unto the uttermost.'

And if the prospect only sharpened and perfected, nor interrupted for one instant the flow of His love, the reality has no power to do aught else. In the glory, when He reached it, He poured out the same loving heart; and to-day He looks down upon us with the same Face that bent over the table in the Upper room, and the same tenderness flows to us. When John saw his Master next, after His Ascension, amidst the glories of the vision in his rocky Patmos, though His face was as the sun shineth in his strength, it was the old face. Though His hand bore the stars in a cluster, it was the hand that had been pierced with the nails. Though the breast was girded with the golden girdle of sovereignty and of priesthood, it was the breast on which John's happy head had lain; and though the Voice was as the sound of many waters,' it soothed itself to a murmur, gentle as that with which the tideless sea about him rippled upon the silvery sand when He said, Fear not I am the First and the Last.' Knowing that He goes to the Father, He loves to the uttermost, and being with the Father, He still so loves.

II. A Love Which Is Faithful To The Obligations Of Its Own Past.

And now I must, with somewhat less of detail, dwell upon the other points which this text brings out for us. It suggests to us next that we have in the love of Jesus Christ a love which is faithful to the obligations of its own past.

Having loved, He loves. Because He had been a certain thing, therefore He is and He shall be that same. That is an argument that implies divinity. About nothing human can we say that because it has been therefore it shall be. Alas I about much that is human we have to say the converse, that because it has been, therefore it will cease to be. And though, blessed be God! they are few and they are poor who have had no experience in their lives of human hearts whose love in the past has been such that it manifestly is for ever, yet we cannot with the same absolute confidence say about one another, even about the dearest, Having loved, he loves.' But we can say so about Christ. There is no exhaustion in that great stream that pours out from His heart; no diminution in its flow.

They tell us that the central light of our system, that great sun itself, pouring out its rays exhausts its warmth, and were it not continually replenished, must gradually, and even though continually replenished, will ultimately cease to blaze, and he a dead, cold mass of ashes. But this central Light, this heart of Christ, which is the Sun of the World, will endure like the sun, and after the sun is cold, His love will last for ever. He pours it out and has none the less to give. There is no bankruptcy in His expenditure, no exhaustion in His effort, no diminution in His stores. Thy mercy endureth for ever'; Thou hast loved, therefore Thou wilt love' is an inference for time and for eternity, on which we may build and rest secure.

III. A Love Which Has Special Tenderness Towards Its Own.

Then, still further, we have here this love suggested as being a love which has special tenderness towards its own. Having loved His own, He loved them to the uttermost.'

These poor men who, with all their errors, did cleave to Him; who, in some dim way, understood somewhat of His greatness and His sweetness--and do you and I do more?--who, with all their sins, yet were true to Him in the main; who had surrendered very much to follow Him, and had identified themselves with Him, were they to have no special place in His heart because in that heart the whole world lay? Is there any reason why we should be afraid of saying that the universal love of Jesus Christ, which gathers into His bosom all mankind, does fall with special tenderness and sweetness upon those who have made Him theirs and have surrendered themselves to be His? Surely it must be that He has special nearness to those who love Him; surely it is reasonable that He should have special delight in those who try to resemble Him; surely it is only what one might expect of Him that He should in a special manner honour the drafts, so to speak, of those who have confidence in Him, and are building their whole lives upon Him. Surely, because the sun shines down upon dunghills and all impurities, that is no reason why it should not lie with special brightness on the polished mirror that reflects its lustre. Surely, because Jesus Christ loves--Blessed be His name!--the publicans and the harlots and the outcasts and the sinners, that is no reason why He should not bend with special tenderness over those who, loving Him, try to serve Him, and have set their whole hopes upon Him. The rainbow strides across the sky, but there is a rainbow in every little dewdrop that hangs glistening on the blades of grass. There is nothing limited, nothing sectional, nothing narrow in the proclamation of a special tenderness of Christ towards His own, when you accompany with that truth this other, that all men are besought by Him to come into that circle of His own,' and that only they themselves shut any out therefrom. Blessed be His name! the whole world dwells in His love, but there is an inner chamber in which He discovers all His heart to those who find in that heart their Heaven and their all. He came to His own,' in the wider sense of the word, and His own received Him not'; but also, having loved His own He loved them unto the end.' There are textures and lives which can only absorb some of the rays of light in the spectrum; some that are only capable of taking, so to speak, the violet rays of judgment and of wrath, and some who open their hearts for the ruddy brightness at the other end of the line. Do you see to it, brethren, that you are of that inner circle who receive the whole Christ into their hearts, and to whom He can unfold the fullness of His love.

IV. Christ As Being Made Specially Tender By The Necessities And The Dangers Of His Friends.

And, lastly, my text suggests that love of Christ as being made specially tender by the necessities and the dangers of His friends. He loved His own which were in the world,' and so loving them, loved them to the uttermost.'

We have, running through these precious discourses which follow my text, many allusions to the separation which was to ensue, and to His leaving His followers in circumstances of peculiar peril, defenceless and solitary. I come unto Thee, and am no more in the world,' says He in the final High-priestly prayer, but these are in the world. Holy Father, keep them through Thine own name.' The same contrast between the certain security of the Shepherd and the troubled perils of the scattered flock seems to be in the words of my text, and suggests a sweet and blessed reason for the special tenderness with which He looked upon them. As a dying father on his deathbed may yearn over orphans that he is leaving defenceless, so Christ is here represented as conscious of an accession even to the tender longings of His heart, when He thought of the loneliness and the dangers to which His followers were to be exposed.

Ah! It seems a harsh contrast between the Emperor, sitting throned there between the purple curtains, and the poor athletes wrestling in the arena below. It seems strange to think that a loving Master has gone up into the mountain, and has left His disciples to toll in rowing on the stormy sea of life; but the contrast is only apparent. For you and I, if we love and trust Him, are with Him in the heavenly places' even whilst we toil here, and He is with us, working with us, even whilst He sitteth at the right hand of God.'

We may be sure of this, brethren, that that love ever increases its manifestations according to our deepening necessities. The darker the night the more lustrous the stars. The deeper, the narrower, the savager, the Alpine gorge, usually the fuller and the swifter the stream that runs through it. And the more that enemies and fears gather round about us, the sweeter will be the accents of our Comforter's voice, and the fuller will be the gifts of tenderness and grace with which He draws near to us. Our sorrows, dangers, necessities, are doors through which His love can come nigh.

So, dear friends, we have had experience of sweet and transient human love; we have had experience of changeful and ineffectual love; turn away from them all to this immortal, deep heart of Christ's, welling over with a love which no change can affect, which no separation can diminish, which no sin can provoke, which becomes greater and tenderer as our necessities increase, and ask Him to fill your hearts with that, that you may know the length and breadth and depth and height of that love which passeth knowledge,' and so be filled with all the fullness of God.'

Maclaren: Joh 13:3-5

The Servant-Master

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid aside His garments; and took a towel, and girded Himself. After that He poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded.'--John 13:3-5.

IT has been suggested that the dispute as to which was the greatest,' which broke the sanctities of the upper chamber, was connected with the unwillingness of each of the Apostles to perform the menial office of washing the feet of his companions. They had come in from Bethany, and needed the service. But apparently it was omitted, and although we can scarcely suppose that the transcendent act which is recorded in my text was performed at the beginning of the meal, yet I think we shall not be wrong if we see in it a reference to the neglected service.

The Evangelist who tells us of the dispute, and does not tell us of the foot-washing, preserves a sentence which finds its true meaning only in this incident, I am among you as He that serveth.' And although John is the only recorder of this pathetic incident, there are allusions in other parts of Scripture which seem to hint at it. As, for instance, when Paul speaks of taking upon Him the form of a servant'; and still more strikingly when Peter employs the remarkable word, which he does employ in his exhortation, Be ye clothed with humility.' For the word rendered there clothed' occurs only in that one place in Scripture, and means literally the putting on of a slave's costume. One can scarcely help, then, seeing in these three passages to which I have referred echoes of this incident which John alone preserves to us. And so we get at once a hint of the harmony and of the incompleteness of the Gospel records.

I. Consider The Motives Of This Act.

Now that is ground upon which the Evangelists very seldom enter. They tell us what Christ did, but very rarely do they give us any glimpses into why He did it. But this section of the Gospel is remarkable for its full and careful analysis of what Christ's impelling motives were in the final acts of His life. How did John find out why Christ did this deed? Perhaps he who had leaned upon His bosom at supper,' and was evidently very closely associated with Him, may, in some unrecorded hour of intimate communion during the forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension, have heard from the Master the exposition of His motives. But more probably, I think, the long years of growing likeness to his Lord, and of meditation upon the depth of meaning in the smallest events that his faithful memory recalled, taught him to understand Christ's purpose and motives. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him,' and the liker we get to our Master and the more we are filled with His Spirit, the more easy will it be for us to divine the purpose and the motives of His actions, whether as they are recorded in the Scripture or as they come to us in the experience of daily life.

But, passing that point, I desire for a moment to fix your attention on the twofold key to our Lord's action which is given in this context. There is, first of all, in the first verse of the chapter, a general exposition of what was uppermost in His mind and heart during the whole of the period in the upper room. The act in our text, and the wonderful words which follow in the subsequent chapters, crowned by that great intercessory prayer, seem to me to be all explained for us by this first unveiling of His motives. When Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end.'

And then the words of my text, which apply more specifically to the single incident with which they are brought into connection, tell us in addition why this one manifestation of Christ's love was given. Knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God.' There, then, are two explanations of motive, the one covering a wider area than the other, but both converging on the incident before us.

The first of these is just this--the consciousness of impending separation moved Christ to a more than ordinarily tender manifestation of His love. For the rendering which you will find in the margin of the Revised Version, He loved them to the uttermost; seems to me to be truer to the Evangelist's meaning than the other, He loved them unto the end.' For it was more to John's purpose to tell us that the shadow of the Cross only brought to the surface in more blessed and wonderful representation the deep love of His heart, than simply to tell us that that shadow did not stop its flow. It is much to know that all through His sorrow He continued to love; it is far more to know that the sorrow sharpened its poignancy, and deepened its depth, and made more tender its tenderness.

How near to the man Christ that thought brings us! Do we not all know the impulse to make parting moments tender moments? The masks of use and wont drop off; the reticence which we, perhaps wisely, ordinarily cultivate in regard to our deepest feelings melts away. We yearn to condense all our unspoken love into some one word, act, look, or embrace, which it may afterwards be life to two hearts to remember. And Jesus Christ felt this. Because He was going away He could not but pour out Himself yet more completely than in the ordinary tenor of His life. The earthquake lays bare hidden veins of gold, and the heart opens itself out when separation impends. We shall never understand the works of Jesus Christ if we do as we are all apt to do, think of them as having only a didactic and doctrinal purpose. We must remember that there is in Him the true play of a human heart, and that it was to relieve His own love, as well as to teach these men their duty, that He rose from the supper, and prepared Himself to wash the disciples' feet.

Then, on the other hand, the other motive which is brought by the Evangelists more immediately into connection with this incident is, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God.'

The consciousness of the highest dignity impels to the lowliest submission. All things given into His hands,' means universal and absolute dominion. That He was come from God,' means pre-existence, voluntary incarnation, an eternal divine nature, and unbroken communion with the Father. That He went to God,' means a voluntary departure from this low world, and a return to His own calm home, His habitation from eternity.'

And, gathered all together, the phrases imply His absolute consciousness of His divine nature. It was that that sent Him with the towel round His loins to wash the foul feet of the pedestrians who had come by the dusty and hot way from Bethany, and through all the abominations of an Eastern city, into the upper chamber.

This was He who from the beginning was with God, and was God.' This was He who was the Lord of Death, Victor over the grave. This was He who by His own power ascended up on high, and reigns on the throne of the universe to-day. This was He whose breast the same Evangelist had seen before he wrote his Gospel, girded with the golden girdle' of priesthood and of sovereignty; and holding, in the hands that had laid the towel on the disciples' feet, the seven stars.

Oh, brethren! if we believed our creeds, how our hearts would melt with wonder and awe that He who was so high stooped so low! Knowing that He came from God, and went to God,' and that even when He was kneeling there before these men, the Father had given all things into His hands,' what did He do? Triumph? Show His majesty? Flash His power? Demand service? Girded Himself with a towel and washed His disciples' feet'!

The consciousness of loftiness does not alone avail to explain the transcendent lowliness. You need the former motive to be joined with it, because it is only love which bends loftiness to service, and turns the consciousness of superiority into yearning to divest oneself of the superiorities that separate, and to emphasise the emotions which unite.

II. The Detailed Completeness Of The Act.

The remarkable particularity of the account of the stages of the humiliation suggests the eye-witness. John carried them all in his mind ineffaceably, and long, long years after that memorable hour we hear him recalling each detail of the scene. We can see the little group startled by the disturbance of the order of the meal as He rose from the table, and the hushed wonder and the open-lipped expectation with which they watched to see what the next step would be. He rises from the table and divests Himself of the upper garments which impeded movement. What will He do next?' He takes the basin, standing there to be ready for washing the apostles' feet, but unused, and not even filled with water. He fills it Himself, asking none to help Him. He girds the towel round Him; and then, perhaps, begins with the betrayer; at any rate, not with Peter.

Cannot you see them, as they look? Do not you feel the solemnity of the detailed particular account of each step?

And may we not also say that all is a parable, or illustration, on a lower level, of the very same principles which were at work in the mightier fact of the greater condescension of His becoming flesh and dwelling among us'? He rose from the table,' as He rose from His place in the bosom of the Father.' He disturbed the meal as He broke the festivities of the heavens. He divested Himself of His garments, as He thought not equality with God a thing to be worn eagerly'; and He girded Himself with the towel,' as He put on the weakness of flesh. Himself He filled the basin, by His own work providing the means of cleansing; and Himself applied the cleansing to the feet of those who were with Him. It is all a working out of the same double motive which drew Him downwards to our earth. The reason why He stooped, with His hands to wash the disciples' feet, is the same as the reason why He had hands to wash with--viz., that knowing Himself to be high over all, and loving all, He chose to become one with us, that we might become like unto Him. So the details of the act are a parable of His incarnation and death.

III. And Then, Still Further, Note The Purpose Of The Deed.

Now although I have said that we never rightly understand our Lord's actions if we are always looking for dogmatic or doctrinal purposes, and thinking of them rather as being lectures, and sometimes rebukes in act, than as being the outgush of His emotions and His human-divine nature, yet we have also to take into account their moral and spiritual lessons. His acts are words and His words are acts. And although the main and primary purpose of this incident, in so far as it had any other purpose than to relieve Christ's own love by manifesting itself, and to comfort the disciples' hearts by the tender manifestation, was to teach them their duty, as we shall presently see, yet the special aspect of cleansing, which comes out so emphatically and prominently in the episode of Peter's refusal, is to be carried all along through the interpretation of the incident. This was the reason why Jesus Christ came from heaven and assumed flesh, and this was the reason why Jesus Christ, assuming flesh, bowed Himself to this menial office--to make men clean.

I venture to say that we never understand Jesus Christ and His work until we recognise this as its prominent purpose, to cleanse us from sin. An inadequate conception of what we need, shallow, superficial views of the gravity and universality, and obstinacy of the fact of sin, are an impenetrable yell between us and all real understanding of Jesus Christ. There is no adequate motive for such an astounding fact as the incarnation and sacrifice of the Son of God, except the purpose of redeeming the world. If you do not believe that you--you individually, and all of us your brethren--need to be cleansed, you will find it hard to believe in the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ. If you have been down into the depths of your own heart, and found out what tremendous, diabolic power your own evil nature and sin have upon you, then you will not be content with anything less than the incarnate God who stoops from heaven to bear the burden of your sin, and to take it all away. If you want to understand why He laid aside His garments and took the servile form of our manhood, the appeal of man's sin to His love and the answer of His Divine condescension are the only explanation.

Again, let me remind you that there is no cleansing without Christ. Can you do it for yourselves, do you think? There is an old proverb, One hand washes the other.' That is true about stains on the flesh. It is not true about stains on our spirits. Nobody can do it for us but Jesus Christ alone. He kneels before us, having the right and the power to wash us because He has died for us. Kings of England used to touch for the king's evil,' and lay their pure fingers upon feculent masses of corruption. Our King's touch is sovereign for the corruption and incipient putrefaction of our sin; and there is no power in heaven or earth that will make a man clean except the power of Jesus Christ. It is either Jesus Christ or filthiness.

If I might pass from my text for one moment, I would remind you of the episode which immediately follows, and suggest that if Jesus Christ is not cleansing us He is nothing to us. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me.' I know, of course, that it is possible to have partial, rudimentary, and sometimes reverent conceptions of that Lord without recognising in Him the great Fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness.' But I am sure of this, that there is no real, living possession of Jesus Christ such as men's souls need, and such as will outlast the disintegrating influences of death, unless it be such a possession of Him as appropriates for its own, primarily, His cleansing power. First of all He must cleanse, and then all other aspects of His glory, and gifts of His grace, will pour into our hearts.

No understanding of Christ, then, without the recognition that cleansing is the purpose and the vindication of His incarnation and sacrifice; no cleansing without Christ; no Christ worth calling by the name without cleansing.

IV. And So, Lastly, Note The Pattern In This Act.

You will remember that it is followed by solemn words spoken after He had taken His garments and resumed His place at the table, in which there blended, in the most wonderful fashion, the consciousness of authority, both as Teacher of truth and as Guide of life, and the sweetest and most loving lowliness. In them Jesus prescribed the wonderful act of His condescending love and cleansing power as the law of the Christian life. There are too many of us who profess to be quite willing to trust to Jesus Christ as the Cleanser of our souls who are not nearly so willing to accept His Example as the pattern for our lives; and I would have you note, as an extremely remarkable point, that all the New Testament references to our Lord as being our Example are given in immediate connection with His passion. The very part of His life which we generally regard as being most absolutely unique and inimitable is the fact in His life which Apostles and Evangelists select as the one to set before us for our example.

Do you ask if any man can copy the sufferings of Jesus Christ? In regard to their virtue and efficacy, No. In regard to their motive--in one aspect, No; in another aspect, Yes. In regard to the spirit that impelled Him we may copy Him. The smallest trickle of water down a city gutter will carve out of the mud at its side little banks and cliffs, and exhibit all the phenomena of erosion on the largest scale, as the Mississippi does over half a continent, and the tiniest little wave in a basin will fail into the same curves as the billows of mid-ocean. You and I, in our little lives, may even aspire to do as I have done to you.'

The true use of superiority is service. Noblesse oblige! Rank, wealth, capacity, talents, all things are given to us that we may use them to the last particle for our fellows. Only when the world and society have awakened to that great truth which the towel-girded, kneeling Christ has taught us, will society be organised on the principles that God meant.

But, further, the highest form of service is to cleanse. Cleansing is always dirty work for the cleaners, as every housemaid knows. You cannot make people clean by scolding them, by lecturing them, by patronising them. You have to go down into the filth if you mean to lift them out of it; and leave your smelling-bottles behind; and think nothing repulsive if your stooping to it may save a brother.

The only way by which we can imitate that example is by, first of all, participating in it for ourselves. We must, first of all, have the Cross as our trust, before it can become our pattern and our law. We must first say, Lord! not my feet only, but also my hands and my head,' and then, in the measure in which we ourselves have received the cleansing benediction, we shall be impelled and able to lay our gentle hands on foulness and leprosy; and to say to all the impure, Jesus Christ, who hath cleansed me, makes thee clean.'

Maclaren: Joh 13:27

The Dismissal Of Judas

Then said Jesus unto Judas, That thou doest, do quickly.'--John 13:27.

WHEN our Lord gave the morsel, dipped in the dish, to Judas, only John knew the significance of the act. But if we supplement the narrative here with that given by Matthew, we shall find that, accompanying the gift of the sop, was a brief dialogue in which the betrayer, with unabashed front, hypocritically said, Lord! Is it I?' and heard the solemn, sad answer, Thou sayest!' Two things, then, appealed to him at the moment: one, the Conviction that he was discovered; the other, the wonderful assurance that he was still loved, for the gift of the morsel was a token of friendliness. He shut his heart against them both; and as he shut his heart against Christ he opened it to the devil So after the sop Satan entered into him.' At that moment a soul committed suicide; and none of those that sat by, with the exception of Christ and the disciple whom He loved,' so much as dreamed of the tragedy going on before their eyes.

I know not that there are anywhere words more weighty and wonderful than those of our text. And I desire to try if I can at all make you feel as I feel, their solemn signification and force. That thou doest, do quickly.'

I. I Hear In Them, First, The Voice Of Despairing Love Abandoning The Conflict.

If I have rightly construed the meaning of the incident, this is the plain meaning of it. And you will observe that the Revised Version, more accurately and closely rendering the words of our text, begins with a Therefore.' Therefore said Jesus unto him,' because the die was cast; because the will of Judas had conclusively welcomed Satan, and conclusively rejected Christ; therefore, knowing that remonstrance was vain, knowing that the deed was, in effect, done, Jesus Christ, that Incarnate Charity which believeth all things, and hopeth all things,' abandoned the man to himself, and said, There, then, if thou wilt thou must. I have done all I can; my last arrow is shot, and it has missed the target. That thou doest, do quickly.'

There is a world of solemn meaning in that one little word doest.' It teaches us the old lesson, which sense is so apt to forget, that the true actor in man's deeds is the hidden man of the heart,' and that when it has acted, it matters comparatively little whether the mere tool and instrument of the hands or of the other organs have carried out the behest. The thing is done before it is done when the man has resolved, with a fixed will, to do it. The betrayal was as good as in process, though no step beyond the introductory ones, which could easily have been cancelled, had yet been accomplished. Because there was a fixed purpose which could not be altered by anything now, therefore Jesus Christ regards the act as completed. It is what we think in our hearts that we are; and our fixed determinations, our inclinations of will, are far more truly our doings than the mere consequences of these, embodied in actuality. It is but a poor estimate of a man that judges him by the test of what he has done. What he has wanted to do is the true man; what he has attempted to do. It was well that it was in thine heart!' saith God to the king who thought of building the Temple which he was never allowed to rear. It is ill that is in thine heart,' says He by whom actions are weighed, to the sinner in purpose, though his clean hands lie idly in his lap. These hidden movements of desire and will that never come to the surface are our true selves. Look after them, and the deeds will take care of themselves. Serpent's eggs have serpents in them. And he that has determined upon a sin has done the sin, whether his hands have been put to it or no.

But, then, turn for a moment to the other thought that is suggested here--that solemn picture of a soul left to do as it will, because divine love has no other restraints which it can impose, and is bankrupt of motives that it can adduce to prevent it from its madness. Now I do not believe, for my part, that any man in this world is so all-round sold unto sin' as that the seeking love of God gives him up as irreclaimable. I do not believe that there are any people concerning whom it is true that it is impossible for the grace of God to find some chink and cranny in their souls through which it can enter and change them. There are no hopeless cases as long as men are here. But, then, though , here may not be so, in regard to the whole sweep of the man's nature, yet every one of us, over and over again, has known what it is to come exactly into that position in regard to some single evil or other, concerning which we have so set our teeth and planted our feet at such an angle of resistance as that God gives up dealing with us and leaves us, as He did with Balaam when He opposed his covetous inclinations to all the remonstrances of Heaven. God said at last to him Go!' because it was the best way to teach him what a fool he had been in wanting to go. Thus, when we determine to set ourselves against the pleadings and the beseechings of divine love, the truest kindness is to fling the reins upon our necks, and let us gallop ourselves into a sweat and weariness, and then we shall be more amenable to the touch of the rein thereafter.

Are there any people whom God is teaching obedience to His light touch, by letting them run their course after some one specific sin? Perhaps there are. At all events let us remember that that position of being allowed to do as we like is one to which we all tend, in the measure in which we indulge our inclinations, and shut our hearts against God's pleadings. There is such a thing as a conscience seared as with a hot iron. They used to say that there were witches' marks on the body, places where, if you stuck a pin in, there was no feeling. Men cover themselves all over with marks of that sort, which are not sensitive even to the prick of a divine remonstrance, rebuke, or retribution. They wipe their mouths and say I have done no harm.' You can tie up the clapper of the bell that swings on the black rock, on which, if you drift, you go to pieces. You can silence the Voice by the simple process of neglecting it. Judas set his teeth against two things, the solemn conviction that Jesus Christ knew his sin, and the saving assurance that Jesus Christ loved him still. And whosoever resists either of these two is getting perilously near to the point where, not in petulance but in pity, God will say, Very well, I have called and ye have refused. Now go, and do what you want to do, and see how you like it when it is done. What thou doest, do quickly.' Do you remember the other word, If twere done when tis done, then twere well it were done quickly'? But since consequences last when deeds are past, perhaps you had better halt before you determine to do them.

II. The Voice Of Strangely Blended Majesty And Humiliation.

Now, secondly, I hear in these words the voice of strangely blended majesty and humiliation.

What thou doest, do!' Judas thought he had got possession of Christ's person, and was His master in a very real sense. When lo! all at once the victim assumes the position of the Lord and commands, showing the traitor that instead of thwarting and counter working, he was but carrying out the designs of his fancied victim; and that he was an instrument in Christ's hands for the execution of His will. And these two thoughts, how, in effect, all antagonism, all malicious hatred, all violent opposition of every sort but work in with Christ's purpose, and carry out His intention; and how, at the moments of deepest apparent degradation, He towers, in manifest Majesty and Masterhood, seem to me to be plainly taught in the word before us.

He uses his foes for the furtherance of His purpose. That has been the history of the world ever since. The floods, O Lord, have lifted up their voice.' And what have they done? Smashing against the breakwater, they but consolidate its mighty blocks, and prove that' the Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many waters.' It has been so in the past, it is so to-day; it will be so till the end. Every Judas is unconsciously the servant of Him whom he seeks to betray; and finds out to his bewilderment that what he meant for a death-blow is fulfilling the very purpose and will of the Lord against whom he has turned.

Again, the combination here, in such remarkable juxtaposition, of the two things, a willing submission to the utmost extremity of shame, which the treasonous heart can froth out in its malice and, at the same time, a rising up in conscious majesty and lordship, are suggested to us by the words before us. That combination of utter lowliness and transcendent loftiness runs through the whole life and history of our Lord. Did you ever think how strong an argument that strange combination, brought out so inartificially throughout the whole of the Gospels, is for their historical veracity? Suppose the problem had been given to poets to create and to set in a series of appropriate scenes a character with these two opposites stamped equally upon it, neither of them impinging upon the domain of the other--viz., utter humility and humiliation in circumstance, and majestic sovereignty and elevation above all circumstances--do you think that any of them could have solved the problem, though AEschylus and Shakespeare had been amongst them, as these four men that wrote these four little tracts that we call Gospels have done? How comes it that this most difficult of literary problems has been so triumphantly solved by these men? I think there is only one answer, Because they were reporters, and imagined nothing, but observed everything, and repeated what had happened.' He reconciled these opposites who was the Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief, and yet the Eternal Son of the Father; and the Gospels have solved the problem only because they are simple records of its solution by Him.

Wherever in His history there is some trait of lowliness there is by the side of it a flash of majesty. Wherever in His history there is some gleaming out from the veil of flesh of the hidden glory of divinity, there is immediately some drawing of the veil across the glory. And the two things do not contradict nor confuse, but we stand before that double picture of a Christ betrayed and of a Christ commanding His betrayer, and using his treason, and we say, The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.'

III. Again, I Hear The Voice Of Instinctive Human Weakness.

That thou doest, do quickly.' It may be doubtful, and some of you perhaps may not be disposed to follow me in my remark, but to my ear that sounds just like the utterance of that instinctive dislike of suspense and of the long hanging over us of the sword by a hair, which we all know so well. Better to suffer than to wait for suffering. The loudest thunder-crash is not so awe-inspiring as the dread silence of nature when the sky is black before the peal rolls through the clouds. Many a martyr has prayed for a swift ending of his troubles. Many a sorrowing heart, that has been sitting cowering under the anticipation of coming evils, has wished that the string could be pulled, as it were, and they could all come down in one cold flood, and be done with, rather than trickle drop by drop. They tell us that the bravest soldiers dislike the five minutes when they stand in rank before the first shot is fired. And with all reverence I venture to think that He who knew all our weaknesses in so far as weakness was not sin, is here letting us see how He, too, desired that the evil which was coming might come quickly, and that the painful tension of expectation might be as brief as possible. That may be doubtful; I do not dwell upon it, but I suggest it for your consideration.

IV. The Voice Of The Willing Sacrifice For The Sins Of The World.

And then I pass on to the last of the tones that I hear in these utterances, the voice of the willing Sacrifice for the sins of the world.

That thou doest, do quickly.' .There is nothing more obvious throughout the whole of the latter portion of the Gospel narrative than the way in which, increasingly towards its close, Jesus seemed to hasten to the Cross. You remember His own sayings: I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished. I am come to cast fire on the earth; would it were already kindled!' You remember with what a strange air--I was going to use an inappropriate word, and say, of alacrity; but, at all events, of fixed resolve--He journeyed from Galilee, in that last solemn march to Jerusalem, and how the disciples followed, astonished at the unwonted look of decision and absorption that was printed upon His countenance. If we consider His doings in that last week in Jerusalem, how he courted publicity, how He avoided no encounter with His official enemies, how He sharpened His tones, not exactly so as to provoke, but certainly so as by no means to conciliate, we shall see, I think, in it all, His consciousness that the hour had come, and His absolute readiness and willingness to be offered for the world's sin. He stretches out His hands, as it were, to draw the Cross nearer to Himself, not with any share in the weakness of a fanatical aspiration after martyrdom, but under a far deeper and more wonderful impulse.

Why was Christ so willing, so eager, if I may use the word, that His death should be accomplished? Two reasons, which at the bottom are one, answer the question. He thus hastened to His Cross because He would obey the Father's will, and because He loved the whole world, you and me and all our fellows. We were each in His heart. It was because He wanted to save thee that He said to Judas, Do it quickly, that the world's salvation and that man's salvation may be accomplished.' These were the cords that bound Him to the altar. Let us never forget that Judas with his treachery, and rulers with their hostility, and Pilate with his authority, and the soldiers with their nails, and centurions with their lances, and the grim figure of Death itself with its shaft, would have been all equally powerless against Christ if it had not been his loving will to die on the Cross for each of us.

Therefore, brethren, as we hear this voice, let us discern in it the tones which warn us of the danger of yielding to inclination and stifling His rebukes, till He abandons us for the moment in despair; let us hear in it the pathetic voice of a Brother, who knows all our weaknesses and has felt our emotions; let us hear the voice of Sovereign Authority which uses its enemies for its purposes, and is never loftier than when it is most lowly, whose Cross is His throne of glory, whose exaltation is His deepest humiliation, and let us hear a love which, discerning each of us through all the ages and the crowds, went willingly to the Cross because He willed that He should be our Saviour.

And seeing that time is short, and the future precarious, and delay may darken into loss and rejection, let us take these words as spoken to us in another sense, and hear in them the warning that to-day, if we will hear His voice, we harden not our hearts,' and when He says to us, in regard to repentance and faith, and Christian consecration and service, That thou doest, do quickly,' let us answer, I made haste and delayed not, but made haste to keep Thy command-merits.'

MHCC: Joh 13:1-17

Our Lord Jesus has a people in the world that are his own; he has purchased them, and paid dear for them, and he has set them apart for himself; they devote themselves to him as a peculiar people. Those whom Christ loves, he loves to the end. Nothing can separate a true believer from the love of Christ. We know not when our hour will come, therefore what we have to do in constant preparation for it, ought never to be undone. What way of access the devil has to men's hearts we cannot tell. But some sins are so exceedingly sinful, and there is so little temptation to them from the world and the flesh, that it is plain they are directly from Satan. Jesus washed his disciples' feet, that he might teach us to think nothing below us, wherein we may promote God's glory, and the good of our brethren. We must address ourselves to duty, and must lay aside every thing that would hinder us in what we have to do. Christ washed his disciples' feet, that he might signify to them the value of spiritual washing, and the cleansing of the soul from the pollutions of sin. Our Lord Jesus does many things of which even his own disciples do not for the present know the meaning, but they shall know afterward. We see in the end what was the kindness from events which seemed most cross. And it is not humility, but unbelief, to put away the offers of the gospel, as if too rich to be made to us, or too good news to be true. All those, and those only, who are spiritually washed by Christ, have a part in Christ. All whom Christ owns and saves, he justifies and sanctifies. Peter more than submits; he begs to be washed by Christ. How earnest he is for the purifying grace of the Lord Jesus, and the full effect of it, even upon his hands and head! Those who truly desire to be sanctified, desire to be sanctified throughout, to have the whole man, with all its parts and powers, made pure. The true believer is thus washed when he receives Christ for his salvation. See then what ought to be the daily care of those who through grace are in a justified state, and that is, to wash their feet; to cleanse themselves from daily guilt, and to watch against everything defiling. This should make us the more cautious. From yesterday's pardon, we should be strengthened against this day's temptation. And when hypocrites are discovered, it should be no surprise or cause of stumbling to us. Observe the lesson Christ here taught. Duties are mutual; we must both accept help from our brethren, and afford help to our brethren. When we see our Master serving, we cannot but see how ill it becomes us to domineer. And the same love which led Christ to ransom and reconcile his disciples when enemies, still influences him.

MHCC: Joh 13:18-30

Our Lord had often spoken of his own sufferings and death, without such trouble of spirit as he now discovered when he spake of Judas. The sins of Christians are the grief of Christ. We are not to confine our attention to Judas. The prophecy of his treachery may apply to all who partake of God's mercies, and meet them with ingratitude. See the infidel, who only looks at the Scriptures with a desire to do away their authority and destroy their influence; the hypocrite, who professes to believe the Scriptures, but will not govern himself by them; and the apostate, who turns aside from Christ for a thing of naught. Thus mankind, supported by God's providence, after eating bread with Him, lift up the heel against Him! Judas went out as one weary of Jesus and his apostles. Those whose deeds are evil, love darkness rather than light.

Matthew Henry: Joh 13:1-17

It has generally been taken for granted by commentators that Christ's washing his disciples' feet, and the discourse that followed it, were the same night in which he was betrayed, and at the same sitting wherein he ate the passover and instituted the Lord's supper; but whether before the solemnity began, or after it was all over, or between the eating of the passover and the institution of the Lord's supper, they are not agreed. This evangelist, making it his business to gather up those passages which the others had omitted, industriously omits those which the others had recorded, which occasions some difficulty in putting them together. If it was then, we suppose that Judas went out (Joh 13:30) to get his men ready that were to apprehend the Lord Jesus in the garden. But Dr. Lightfoot is clearly of opinion that this was done and said, even all that is recorded to the end of ch. 14, not at the passover supper, for it is here said (Joh 13:1) to be before the feast of the passover, but at the supper in Bethany, two days before the passover (of which we read Mat 26:2-6), at which Mary the second time anointed Christ's head with the remainder of her box of ointment. Or, it might be at some other supper the night before the passover, not as that was in the house of Simon the leper, but in his own lodgings, where he had none but his disciples about him, and could be more free with them.

In these verses we have the story of Christ's washing his disciples' feet; it was an action of a singular nature; no miracle, unless we call it a miracle of humility. Mary had just anointed his head; now, lest his acceptance of this should look like taking state, he presently balances it with this act of abasement. But why would Christ do this? If the disciples' feet needed washing, they could wash them themselves; a wise man will not do a thing that looks odd and unusual, but for very good causes and considerations. We are sure that it was not in a humour or a frolic that this was done; no, the transaction was very solemn, and carried on with a great deal of seriousness; and four reasons are here intimated why Christ did this: - 1. That he might testify his love to his disciples, Joh 13:1, Joh 13:2. 2. That he might give an instance of his own voluntary humility and condescension, Joh 13:3-5. 3. That he might signify to them spiritual washing, which is referred to in his discourse with Peter, Joh 13:6-11. 4. That he might set them an example, Joh 13:12-17. And the opening of these four reasons will take in the exposition of the whole story.

I. Christ washed his disciples' feet that he might give a proof of that great love wherewith he loved them; loved them to the end, Joh 13:1, Joh 13:2.

1. It is here laid down as an undoubted truth that our Lord Jesus, having loved his own that were in the world, loved them to the end, Joh 13:1.

(1.) This is true of the disciples that were his immediate followers, in particular the twelve. These were his own in the world, his family, his school, his bosom-friends. Children he had none to call his own, but he adopted them, and took them as his own. He had those that were his own in the other world, but he left them for a time, to look after his own in this world. These he loved, he called them into fellowship with himself, conversed familiarly with them, was always tender of them, and of their comfort and reputation. He allowed them to be very free with him, and bore with their infirmities. He loved them to the end, continued his love to them as long as he lived, and after his resurrection; he never took away his loving kindness. Though there were some persons of quality that espoused his cause, he did not lay aside his old friends, to make room for new ones, but still stuck to his poor fishermen. They were weak and defective in knowledge and grace, dull and forgetful; and yet, though he reproved them often, he never ceased to love them and take care of them.

(2.) It is true of all believers, for these twelve patriarchs were the representatives of all the tribes of God's spiritual Israel. Note, [1.] Our Lord Jesus has a people in the world that are his own, - his own, for they were given him by the Father, he has purchased them, and paid dearly for them, and he has set them apart for himself, - his own, for they have devoted themselves to him as a peculiar people. His own; where his own were spoken of that received him not, it is tous idious - his own persons, as a man's wife and children are his own, to whom he stands in a constant relation. [2.] Christ has a cordial love for his own that are in the world. He did love them with a love of goodwill when he gave himself for their redemption. He does love them with a love of complacency when he admits them into communion with himself. Though they are in this world, a world of darkness and distance, of sin and corruption, yet he loves them. He was now going to his own in heaven, the spirits of just men made perfect there; but he seems most concerned for his own on earth, because they most needed his care: the sickly child is most indulged. [3.] Those whom Christ loves he loves to the end; he is constant in his love to his people; he rests in his love. He loves with an everlasting love (Jer 31:3), from everlasting in the counsels of it to everlasting in the consequences of it. Nothing can separate a believer from the love of Christ; he loves his own, eis telos - unto perfection, for he will perfect what concerns them, will bring them to that world where love is perfect.

2. Christ manifested his love to them by washing their feet, as that good woman (Luk 7:38) showed her love to Christ by washing his feet and wiping them. Thus he would show that as his love to them was constant so it was condescending, - that in prosecution of the designs of it he was willing to humble himself, - and that the glories of his exalted state, which he was now entering upon, should be no obstruction at all to the favour he bore to his chosen; and thus he would confirm the promise he had made to all the saints that he would make them sit down to meat, and would come forth and serve them (Luk 12:37), would put honour upon them as great and surprising as for a lord to serve his servants. The disciples had just now betrayed the weakness of their love to him, in grudging the ointment that was poured upon his head (Mat 26:8), yet he presently gives this proof of his love to them. Our infirmities are foils to Christ's kindnesses, and set them off.

3. He chose this time to do it, a little before his last passover, for two reasons: -

(1.) Because now he knew that his hour was come, which he had long expected, when he should depart out of this world to the Father. Observe here, [1.] The change that was to pass over our Lord Jesus; he must depart. This began at his death, but was completed at his ascension. As Christ himself, so all believers, by virtue of their union with him, when they depart out of the world, are absent from the body, go to the Father, are present with the Lord. It is a departure out of the world, this unkind, injurious world, this faithless, treacherous world - this world of labour, toil, and temptation - this vale of tears; and it is a going to the Father, to the vision of the Father of spirits, and the fruition of him as ours. [2.] The time of this change: His hour was come. It is sometimes called his enemies' hour (Luk 22:53), the hour of their triumph; sometimes his hour, the hour of his triumph, the hour he had had in his eye all along. The time of his sufferings was fixed to an hour, and the continuance of them but for an hour. [3.] His foresight of it: He knew that his hour was come; he knew from the beginning that it would come, and when, but now he knew that it was come. We know not when our hour will come, and therefore what we have to do in habitual preparation for it ought never to be undone; but, when we know by the harbingers that our hour is come, we must vigorously apply ourselves to an actual preparation, as our Master did, 2Pe 3:14. Now it was in the immediate foresight of his departure that he washed his disciples' feet; that, as his own head was anointed just now against the day of his burial, so their feet might be washed against the day of their consecration by the descent of the Holy Ghost fifty days after, as the priests were washed, Lev 8:6. When we see our day approaching, we should do what good we can to those we leave behind.

(2.) Because the devil had now put it into the heart of Judas to betray him, Joh 13:2. These words in a parenthesis may be considered, [1.] As tracing Judas's treason to its origin; it was a sin of such a nature that it evidently bore the devil's image and superscription. What way of access the devil has to men's hearts, and by what methods he darts in his suggestions, and mingles them undiscerned with those thoughts which are the natives of the heart, we cannot tell. But there are some sins in their own nature so exceedingly sinful, and to which there is so little temptation from the world and the flesh, that it is plain Satan lays the egg of them in a heart disposed to be the nest to hatch them in. For Judas to betray such a master, to betray him so cheaply and upon no provocation, was such downright enmity to God as could not be forged but by Satan himself, who thereby thought to ruin the Redeemer's kingdom, but did in fact ruin his own. [2.] As intimating a reason why Christ now washed his disciples' feet. First, Judas being now resolved to betray him, the time of his departure could not be far off; if this matter be determined, it is easy to infer with St. Paul, I am now ready to be offered. Note, The more malicious we perceive our enemies to be against us, the more industrious we should be to prepare for the worst that may come. Secondly, Judas being now got into the snare, and the devil aiming at Peter and the rest of them (Luk 22:31), Christ would fortify his own against him. If the wolf has seized one of the flock, it is time for the shepherd to look well to the rest. Antidotes must be stirring, when the infection is begun. Dr. Lightfoot observes that the disciples had learned of Judas to murmur at the anointing of Christ; compare Joh 12:4, etc. with Mat 26:8. Now, lest those that had learned that of him should learn worse, he fortifies them by a lesson of humility against his most dangerous assaults. Thirdly, Judas, who was now plotting to betray him, was one of the twelve. Now Christ would hereby show that he did not design to cast them all off for the faults of one. Though one of their college had a devil, and was a traitor, yet they should fare never the worse for that. Christ loves his church though there are hypocrites in it, and had still a kindness for his disciples though there was a Judas among them and he knew it.

II. Christ washed his disciples' feet that he might give an instance of his own wonderful humility, and show how lowly and condescending he was, and let all the world know how low he could stoop in love to his own. This is intimated, Joh 13:3-5. Jesus knowing, and now actually considering, and perhaps discoursing of, his honours as Mediator, and telling his friends that the Father had given all things into his hand, rises from supper, and, to the great surprise of the company, who wondered what he was going to do, washed his disciples' feet.

1. Here is the rightful advancement of the Lord Jesus. Glorious things are here said of Christ as Mediator.

(1.) The Father had given all things into his hands; had given him a propriety in all, and a power over all, as possessor of heaven and earth, in pursuance of the great designs of his undertaking; see Mat 11:27. The accommodation and arbitration of all matters in variance between God and man were committed into his hands as the great umpire and referee; and the administration of the kingdom of God among men, in all the branches of it, was committed to him; so that all acts, both of government and judgment, were to pass through his hands; he is heir of all things.

(2.) He came from God. This implies that he was in the beginning with God, and had a being and glory, not only before he was born into this world, but before the world itself was born; and that when he came into the world he came as God's ambassador, with a commission from him. He came from God as the son of God, and the sent of God. The Old Testament prophets were raised up and employed for God, but Christ came directly from him.

(3.) He went to God, to be glorified with him with the same glory which he had with God from eternity. That which comes from God shall go to God; those that are born from heaven are bound for heaven. As Christ came from God to be an agent for him on earth, so he went to God to be an agent for us in heaven; and it is a comfort to us to think how welcome he was there: he was brought near to the Ancient of days, Dan 7:13. And it was said to him, Sit thou at my right hand, Psa 110:1.

(4.) He knew all this; was not like a prince in the cradle, that knows nothing of the honour he is born to, or like Moses, who wist not that his face shone; no, he had a full view of all the honours of his exalted state, and yet stooped thus low. But how does this come in here? [1.] As an inducement to him now quickly to leave what lessons and legacies he had to leave to his disciples, because his hour was now come when he must take his leave of them, and be exalted above that familiar converse which he now had with them, Joh 13:1. [2.] It may come in as that which supported him under his sufferings, and carried him cheerfully through this sharp encounter. Judas was now betraying him, and he knew it, and knew what would be the consequence of it; yet, knowing also that he came from God and went to God, he did not draw back, but went on cheerfully. [3.] It seems to come in as a foil to his condescension, to make it the more admirable. The reasons of divine grace are sometimes represented in scripture as strange and surprising (as Isa 57:17, Isa 57:18; Hos 2:13, Hos 2:14); so here, that is given as an inducement to Christ to stoop which should rather have been a reason for his taking state; for God's thoughts are not as ours. Compare with this those passages which preface the most signal instances of condescending grace with the displays of divine glory, as Psa 68:4, Psa 68:5; Isa 57:15; Isa 66:1, Isa 66:2.

2. Here is the voluntary abasement of our Lord Jesus notwithstanding this. Jesus knowing his own glory as God, and his own authority and power as Mediator, one would think it should follow, He rises from supper, lays aside his ordinary garments, calls for robes, bids them keep their distance, and do him homage; but no, quite the contrary, when he considered this he gave the greatest instance of humility. Note, A well-grounded assurance of heaven and happiness, instead of puffing a man up with pride, will make and keep him very humble. Those that would be found conformable to Christ, and partakers of his Spirit, must study to keep their minds low in the midst of the greatest advancements. Now that which Christ humbled himself to was to wash his disciples' feet.

(1.) The action itself was mean and servile, and that which servants of the lowest rank were employed in. Let thine handmaid (saith Abigail) be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord; let me be in the meanest employment, 1Sa 25:41. If he had washed their hands or faces, it had been great condescension (Elisha poured water on the hands of Elijah, 2Ki 3:11); but for Christ to stoop to such a piece of drudgery as this may well excite our admiration. Thus he would teach us to think nothing below us wherein we may be serviceable to God's glory and the good of our brethren.

(2.) The condescension was so much the greater that he did this for his own disciples, who in themselves were of a low and despicable condition, not curious about their bodies; their feet, it is likely, were seldom washed, and therefore very dirty. In relation to him, they were his scholars, his servants, and such as should have washed his feet, whose dependence was upon him, and their expectations from him. Many of great spirits otherwise will do a mean thing to curry favour with their superiors; they rise by stooping, and climb by cringing; but for Christ to do this to his disciples could be no act of policy nor complaisance, but pure humility.

(3.) He rose from supper to do it. Though we translate it (Joh 13:2) supper being ended, it might be better read, there being a supper made, or he being at supper, for he sat down again (Joh 13:12), and we find him dipping a sop (Joh 13:26), so that he did it in the midst of his meal, and thereby taught us, [1.] Not to reckon it a disturbance, nor any just cause of uneasiness, to be called from our meal to do God or our brother any real service, esteeming the discharge of our duty more than our necessary food, Joh 4:34. Christ would not leave his preaching to oblige his nearest relations (Mar 3:33), but would leave his supper to show his love to his disciples. [2.] Not to be over nice about our meat. It would have turned many a squeamish stomach to wash dirty feet at supper-time; but Christ did it, not that we might learn to be rude and slovenly (cleanliness and godliness will do well together), but to teach us not to be curious, not to indulge, but mortify, the delicacy of the appetite, giving good manners their due place, and no more.

(4.) He put himself into the garb of a servant, to do it: he laid aside his loose and upper garments, that he might apply himself to this service the more expeditely. We must address ourselves to duty as those that are resolved not to take state, but to take pains; we must divest ourselves of every thing that would either feed our pride or hang in our way and hinder us in what we have to do, must gird up the loins of our mind, as those that in earnest buckle to business.

(5.) He did it with all the humble ceremony that could be, went through all the parts of the service distinctly, and passed by none of them; he did it as if he had been used thus to serve; did it himself alone, and had none to minister to him in it. He girded himself with the towel, as servants throw a napkin on their arm, or put an apron before them; he poured water into the basin out of the water-pots that stood by (Joh 2:6), and then washed their feet; and, to complete the service, wiped them. Some think that he did not wash the feet of them all, but only four or five of them, that being thought sufficient to answer the end; but I see nothing to countenance this conjecture, for in other places where he did make a difference it is taken notice of; and his washing the feet of them all, without exception, teaches us a catholic and extensive charity to all Christ's disciples, even the least.

(6.) Nothing appears to the contrary but that he washed the feet of Judas among the rest, for he was present, Joh 13:26. It is the character of a widow indeed that she had washed the saints' feet (1Ti 5:10), and there is some comfort in this; but the blessed Jesus here washed the feet of a sinner, the worst of sinners, the worst to him, who was at this time contriving to betray him.

Many interpreters consider Christ's washing his disciples' feet as a representation of his whole undertaking. He knew that he was equal with God, and all things were his; and yet he rose from his table in glory, laid aside his robes of light, girded himself with our nature, took upon him the form of a servant, came not to be ministered to, but to minister, poured out his blood, poured out his soul unto death, and thereby prepared a laver to wash us from our sins, Rev 1:5.

III. Christ washed his disciples' feet that he might signify to them spiritual washing, and the cleansing of the soul from the pollutions of sin. This is plainly intimated in his discourse with Peter upon it, Joh 13:6-11, in which we may observe,

1. The surprise Peter was in when he saw his Master go about this mean service (Joh 13:6): Then cometh he to Simon Peter, with his towel and basin, and bids him put out his feet to be washed. Chrysostom conjectures that he first washed the feet of Judas, who readily admitted the honour, and was pleased to see his Master so disparage himself. It is most probable that when he went about this service (which is all that is meant by his beginning to wash, Joh 13:5) he took Peter first, and that the rest would not have suffered it, if they had not first heard it explained in what passed between Christ and Peter. Whether Christ came first to Peter or no, when he did come to him, Peter was startled at the proposal: Lord (saith he) dost thou wash my feet? Here is an emphasis to be laid upon the persons, thou and me; and the placing of the words is observable, su mou - what, thou mine? Tu mihi lavas pedes? Quid est tu? Quid est mihi? Cogitanda sunt potius quam dicenda - Dost thou wash my feet? What is it thou? What to me? These things are rather to be contemplated than uttered. - Aug. in loc. What thou, our Lord and Master, whom we know and believe to be the Son of God, and Saviour and ruler of the world, do this for me, a worthless worm of the earth, a sinful man, O Lord? Shall those hands wash my feet which with a touch have cleansed lepers, given sight to the blind, and raised the dead? So Theophylact, and from him Dr. Taylor. Very willingly would Peter have taken the basin and towel, and washed his Master's feet, and been proud of the honour, Luk 17:7, Luk 17:8. "This had been natural and regular; for my Master to wash my feet is such a solecism as never was; such a paradox as I cannot understand. Is this the manner of men? "Note, Christ's condescensions, especially his condescensions to us, wherein we find ourselves taken notice of by his grace, are justly the matter of our admiration, Joh 14:22. Who am I, Lord God? And what is my father's house?

2. The immediate satisfaction Christ gave to this question of surprise. This was at least sufficient to silence his objections (Joh 13:7): What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter. Here are two reasons why Peter must submit to what Christ was doing: -

(1.) Because he was at present in the dark concerning it, and ought not to oppose what he did not understand, but acquiesce in the will and wisdom of one who could give a good reason for all he said and did. Christ would teach Peter an implicit obedience: " What I do thou knowest not now, and therefore art no competent judge of it, but must believe it is well done because I do it."Note, Consciousness to ourselves of the darkness we labour under, and our inability to judge of what God does, should make us sparing and modest in our censures of his proceedings; see Heb 11:8.

(2.) Because there was something considerable in it, of which he should hereafter know the meaning: " Thou shalt know hereafter what need thou hast of being washed, when thou shalt be guilty of the heinous sin of denying me;"so some. "Thou shalt know, when, in the discharge of the office of an apostle, thou wilt be employed in washing off from those under thy charge the sins and defilements of their earthly affections;"so Dr. Hammond. Note, [1.] Our Lord Jesus does many things the meaning of which even his own disciples do not for the present know, but they shall know afterwards. What he did when he became man for us and what he did when he became a worm and no man for us, what he did when he lived our life and what he did when he laid it down, could not be understood till afterwards, and then it appeared that it behoved him, Heb 2:17. Subsequent providences explain preceding ones; and we see afterwards what was the kind tendency of events that seemed most cross; and the way which we thought was about proved the right way. [2.] Christ's washing his disciples' feet had a significancy in it, which they themselves did not understand till afterwards, when Christ explained it to be a specimen of the laver of regeneration, and till the Spirit was poured out upon them from on high. We must let Christ take his own way, both in ordinances and providences, and we shall find in the issue it was the best way.

3. Peter's peremptory refusal, notwithstanding this, to let Christ wash his feet (Joh 13:8): Thou shalt by no means wash my feet; no, never. So it is in the original. It is the language of a fixed resolution. Now, (1.) Here was a show of humility and modesty. Peter herein seemed to have, and no doubt he really had, a great respect for his Master, as he had, Luk 5:8. Thus many are beguiled of their reward in a voluntary humility (Col 2:18, Col 2:23), such a self-denial as Christ neither appoints nor accepts; for, (2.) Under this show of humility there was a real contradiction to the will of the Lord Jesus: "I will wash thy feet, "saith Christ; "But thou never shalt,"saith Peter, "it is not a fitting thing;"so making himself wiser than Christ. It is not humility, but infidelity, to put away the offers of the gospel, as if too rich to be made to us or too good news to be true.

4. Christ's insisting upon his offer, and a good reason given to Peter why he should accept it: If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. This may be taken, (1.) As a severe caution against disobedience: " If I wash thee not, if thou continue refractory, and wilt not comply with thy Master's will in so small a matter, thou shalt not be owned as one of my disciples, but be justly discarded and cashiered for not observing orders."Thus several of the ancients understand it; if Peter will make himself wiser than his Master, and dispute the commands he ought to obey, he does in effect renounce his allegiance, and say, as they did, What portion have we in David, in the Son of David? And so shall his doom be, he shall have no part in him. Let him use no more manners than will do him good, for to obey is better than sacrifice, 1Sa 15:22. Or, (2.) As a declaration of the necessity of spiritual washing; and so I think it is to be understood: " If I wash not thy soul from the pollution of sin, thou hast no part with me, no interest in me, no communion with me, no benefit by me."Note, All those, and those only, that are spiritually washed by Christ, have a part in Christ. [1.] To have a part in Christ, or with Christ, has all the happiness of a Christian bound up in it, to be partakers of Christ (Heb 3:14), to share in those inestimable privileges which result from a union with him and relation to him. It is that good part the having of which is the one thing needful. [2.] It is necessary to our having a part in Christ that he wash us. All those whom Christ owns and saves he justifies and sanctifies, and both are included in his washing them. We cannot partake of his glory if we partake not of his merit and righteousness, and of his Spirit and grace.

5. Peter's more than submission, his earnest request, to be washed by Christ, Joh 13:9. If this be the meaning of it, Lord, wash not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. How soon is Peter's mind changed! When the mistake of his understanding was rectified, the corrupt resolution of his will was soon altered. Let us therefore not be peremptory in any resolve (except in our resolve to follow Christ), because we may soon see cause to retract it, but cautious in taking up a purpose we will be tenacious of. Observe,

(1.) How ready Peter is to recede from what he had said: "Lord, what a fool was I to speak such a hasty word!"Now that the washing of him appeared to be an act of Christ's authority and grace he admits it; but disliked when it seemed only an act of humiliation. Note, [1.] Good men, when they see their error, will not be loth to recant it. [2.] Sooner or later, Christ will bring all to be of his mind.

(2.) How importunate he is for the purifying grace of the Lord Jesus, and the universal influence of it, even upon his hands and head. Note, A divorce from Christ, and an exclusion from having a part in him, is the most formidable evil in the eyes of all that are enlightened, for the fear of which they will be persuaded to any thing. And for fear of this we should be earnest with God in prayer, that he will wash us, will justify and sanctify us. "Lord, that I may not be cut off from thee, make me fit for thee, by the washing of regeneration. Lord, wash not my feet only from the gross pollutions that cleave to them, but also my hands and my head from the spots which they have contracted, and the undiscerned filth which proceeds by perspiration from the body itself."Note, Those who truly desire to be sanctified desire to be sanctified throughout, and to have the whole man, with all its parts and powers, purified, 1Th 5:23.

6. Christ's further explication of this sign, as it represented spiritual washing.

(1.) With reference to his disciples that were faithful to him (Joh 13:10): He that is washed all over in the bath (as was frequently practised in those countries), when he returns to his house, needeth not save to wash his feet, his hands and head having been washed, and he having only dirtied his feet in walking home. Peter had gone from one extreme to the other. At first he would not let Christ wash his feet; and now he overlooks what Christ had done for him in his baptism, and what was signified thereby, and cries out to have his hands and head washed. Now Christ directs him into the meaning; he must have his feet washed, but not his hands and head. [1.] See here what is the comfort and privilege of such as are in a justified state; they are washed by Christ, and are clean every whit, that is, they are graciously accepted of God, as if they were so; and, though they offend, yet they need not, upon their repentance, be again put into a justified state, for then should they often be baptized. The evidence of a justified state may be clouded, and the comfort of it suspended, when yet the charter of it is not vacated or taken away. Though we have occasion to repent daily, God's gifts and callings are without repentance. The heart may be swept and garnished, and yet still remain the devil's palace; but, if it be washed, it belongs to Christ, and he will not lose it. [2.] See what ought to be the daily care of those who through grace are in a justified state, and that is to wash their feet; to cleanse themselves from the guilt they contract daily through infirmity and inadvertence, by the renewed exercise of repentance, with a believing application of the virtue of Christ's blood. We must also wash our feet by constant watchfulness against every thing that is defiling, for we must cleanse our way, and cleanse our feet by taking heed thereto, Psa 119:9. The priests, when they were consecrated, were washed with water; and, though they did not need afterwards to be so washed all over, yet, whenever they went in to minister, they must wash their feet and hands at the laver, on pain of death, Exo 30:19, Exo 30:20. The provision made for our cleansing should not make us presumptuous, but the more cautious. I have washed my feet, how shall I defile them? From yesterday's pardon, we should fetch an argument against this day's temptation.

(2.) With reflection upon Judas: And you are clean, but not all, Joh 13:10, Joh 13:11. He pronounces his disciples clean, clean through the word he had spoken to them, Joh 15:3. He washed them himself, and then said, You are clean; but he excepts Judas: not all; they were all baptized, even Judas, yet not all clean; many have the sign that have not the thing signified. Note, [1.] Even among those who are called disciples of Christ, and profess relation to him, there are some who are not clean, Pro 30:12. [2.] The Lord knows those that are his, and those that are not, 2Ti 2:19. The eye of Christ can separate between the precious and the vile, the clean and the unclean. [3.] When those that have called themselves disciples afterwards prove traitors, their apostasy at last is a certain evidence of their hypocrisy all along. [4.] Christ sees it necessary to let his disciples know that they are not all clean; that we may all be jealous over ourselves ( Is it I? Lord, is it I that am among the clean, yet not clean?) and that, when hypocrites are discovered, it may be no surprise nor stumbling to us.

IV. Christ washed his disciples' feet to set before us an example. This explication he gave of what he had done, when he had done it, Joh 13:12-17. Observe,

1. With what solemnity he gave an account of the meaning of what he had done (Joh 13:12): After he had washed their feet, he said, Know you what I have done?

(1.) He adjourned the explication till he had finished the transaction, [1.] To try their submission and implicit obedience. What he did they should not know till afterwards, that they might learn to acquiesce in his will when they could not give a reason for it. [2.] Because it was proper to finish the riddle before he unriddled it. Thus, as to his whole undertaking, when his sufferings were finished, when he had resumed the garments of his exalted state and was ready to sit down again, then he opened the understandings of his disciples, and poured out his Spirit, Luk 24:45, Luk 24:46.

(2.) Before he explained it, he asked them if they could construe it: Know you what I have done to you? He put this question to them, not only to make them sensible of their ignorance, and the need they had to be instructed (as Zec 4:5, Zec 4:13, Knowest thou not what these be? and I said, No, my Lord ), but to raise their desires and expectations of instruction: "I would have you know, and, if you will give attention, I will tell you."Note, It is the will of Christ that sacramental signs should be explained, and that his people should be acquainted with the meaning of them; otherwise, though ever so significant, to those who know not the thing signified they are insignificant. Hence they are directed to ask, What mean you by this service? Exo 12:26.

2. Upon what he grounds that which he had to say (Joh 13:13): " You call me Master and Lord, you give me those titles, in speaking of me, in speaking to me, and you say well, for so I am; you are in the relation of scholars to me, and I do the part of a master to you."Note, (1.) Jesus Christ is our Master and Lord; he that is our Redeemer and Saviour is, in order to that, our Lord and Master. He is our Master, didaskalos - our teacher and instructor in all necessary truths and rules, as a prophet revealing to us the will of God. He is our Lord, kurios - our ruler and owner, that has authority over us and propriety in us. (2.) It becomes the disciples of Christ to call him Master and Lord, not in compliment, but in reality; not by constraint, but with delight. Devout Mr. Herbert, when he mentioned the name of Christ, used to add, my Master; and thus expresses himself concerning it in one of his poems:

How sweetly doth my Master sound, my Master!

As ambergris leaves a rich scent unto the taster,

So do these words a sweet content, an oriental fragrancy, my Master.

(3.) Our calling Christ Master and Lord is an obligation upon us to receive and observe the instruction he gives us. Christ would thus pre-engage their obedience to a command that was displeasing to flesh and blood. If Christ be our Master and Lord, be so by our own consent, and we have often called him so, we are bound in honour and honesty to be observant of him.

3. The lesson which he hereby taught: You also ought to wash one another's feet, Joh 13:14.

(1.) Some have understood this literally, and have thought these words amount to the institution of a standing ordinance in the church; that Christians should, in a solemn religious manner, wash one another's feet, in token of their condescending love to one another. St. Ambrose took it so, and practised it in the church of Milan. St. Austin saith that those Christians who did not do it with their hands, yet (he hoped) did it with their hearts in humility; but he saith, It is much better to do it with the hands also, when there is occasion, as 1Ti 5:10. What Christ has done Christians should not disdain to do. Calvin saith that the pope, in the annual observance of this ceremony on Thursday in the passion week, is rather Christ's ape than his follower, for the duty enjoined, in conformity to Christ, was mutual: Wash one another's feet. And Jansenius saith, It is done, Frigidè et dissimiliter - Frigidly, and unlike the primitive model.

(2.) But doubtless it is to be understood figuratively; it is an instructive sign, but not sacramental, as the eucharist. This was a parable to the eye; and three things our Master hereby designed to teach us: - [1.] A humble condescension. We must learn of our Master to be lowly in heart (Mat 11:29), and walk with all lowliness; we must think meanly of ourselves and respectfully of our brethren, and deem nothing below us but sin; we must say of that which seems mean, but has a tendency to the glory of God and our brethren's good, as David (2Sa 6:22), If this be to be vile, I will be yet more vile. Christ had often taught his disciples humility, and they had forgotten the lesson; but now he teaches them in such a way as surely they could never forget. [2.] A condescension to be serviceable. To wash one another's feet is to stoop to the meanest offices of love, for the real good and benefit one of another, as blessed Paul, who, though free from all, made himself servant of all; and the blessed Jesus, who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. We must not grudge to take care and pains, and to spend time, and to diminish ourselves for the good of those to whom we are not under any particular obligations, even of our inferiors, and such as are not in a capacity of making us any requital. Washing the feet after travelling contributes both to the decency of the person and to his ease, so that to wash one another's feet is to consult both the credit and the comfort one of another, to do what we can both to advance our brethren's reputation and to make their minds easy. See 1Co 10:24; Heb 6:10. The duty is mutual; we must both accept help from our brethren and afford help to our brethren. [3.] A serviceableness to the sanctification one of another: You ought to wash one another's feet, from the pollutions of sin. Austin takes it in this sense, and many others. We cannot satisfy for one another's sins, this is peculiar to Christ, but we may help to purify one another from sin. We must in the first place wash ourselves; this charity must begin at home (Mat 7:5), but it must not end there; we must sorrow for the failings and follies of our brethren, much more for their gross pollutions (1Co 5:2), must wash our brethren's polluted feet in tears. We must faithfully reprove them, and do what we can to bring them to repentance (Gal 6:1), and we must admonish them, to prevent their falling into the mire; this is washing their feet.

4. Here is the ratifying and enforcing of this command from the example of what Christ had now done: If I your Lord and Master have done it to you, you ought to do it to one another. He shows the cogency of this argument in two things: -

(1.) I am your Master, and you are my disciples, and therefore you ought to learn of me (Joh 13:15); for in this, as in other things, I have given you an example, that you should do to others as I have done to you. Observe, [1.] What a good teacher Christ is. He teaches by example as well as doctrine, and for this end came into this world, and dwelt among us, that he might set us a copy of all those graces and duties which his holy religion teaches; and it is a copy without one false stroke. Hereby he made his own laws more intelligible and honourable. Christ is a commander like Gideon, who said to his soldiers, Look on me, and do likewise (Jdg 7:17); like Abimelech, who said, What you have seen me do, make haste and do as I have done (Jdg 9:48); and like Caesar, who called his soldiers, not milites - soldiers, but, commilitones - fellow-soldiers, and whose usual word was, not Ite illue , but Venite huc ; not Go, but Come. [2.] What good scholars we must be. We must do as he hath done; for therefore he gave us a copy, that we should write after it, that we might be as he was in this world (1Jo 4:17), and walk as he walked, 1Jo 2:6. Christ's example herein is to be followed by ministers in particular, in whom the graces of humility and holy love should especially appear, and by the exercise thereof they effectually serve the interests of their Master and the ends of their ministry. When Christ sent his apostles abroad as his agents, it was with this charge, that they should not take state upon them, nor carry things with a high hand, but become all things to all men, 1Co 9:22. What I have done to your dirty feet that do you to the polluted souls of sinners; wash them. Some who suppose this to have been done at the passover supper think it intimates a rule in admitting communicants to the Lord's-supper, to see that they be first washed and cleansed by reformation and a blameless conversation, and then take them in to compass God's altar. But all Christians likewise are here taught to condescend to each other in love, and to do it as Christ did it, unasked, unpaid; we must not be mercenary in the services of love, nor do them with reluctancy.

(2.) I am your Master, and you are my disciples, and therefore you cannot think it below you to do that, how mean soever it may seem, which you have seen me do, for (Joh 13:16) the servant is not greater than his Lord, neither he that is sent, though sent with all the pomp and power of an ambassador, greater than he that sent him. Christ had urged this (Mat 10:24, Mat 10:25) as a reason why they should not think it strange if they suffered as he did; here he urges it as a reason why they should not think it much to humble themselves as he did. What he did not think a disparagement to him, they must not think a disparagement to them. Perhaps the disciples were inwardly disgusted at this precept of washing one another's feet, as inconsistent with the dignity they expected shortly to be preferred to. To obviate such thoughts, Christ reminds them of their place as his servants; they were not better men than their Master, and what was consistent with his dignity was much more consistent with theirs. If he was humble and condescending, it ill became them to be proud and assuming. Note, [1.] We must take good heed to ourselves, lest Christ's gracious condescensions to us, and advancements of us, through the corruption of nature occasion us to entertain high thoughts of ourselves or low thoughts of him. We need to be put in mind of this, that we are not greater than our Lord. [2.] Whatever our Master was pleased to condescend to in favour to us, we should much more condescend to in conformity to him. Christ, by humbling himself, has dignified humility, and put an honour upon it, and obliged his followers to think nothing below them but sin. We commonly say to those who disdain to do such or such a thing, As good as you have done it, and been never the worse thought of; and true indeed it is, if our Master has done it. When we see our Master serving, we cannot but see how ill it becomes us to be domineering.

Matthew Henry: Joh 13:18-30

We have here the discovery of Judas's plot to betray his Master. Christ knew it from the beginning; but now first he discovered it to his disciples, who did not expect Christ should be betrayed, though he had often told them so, much less did they suspect that one of them should do it. Now here,

I. Christ gives them a general intimation of it (Joh 13:18): I speak not of you all, I cannot expect you will all do these things, for I know whom I have chosen, and whom I have passed by; but the scripture will be fulfilled (Psa 41:9), He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. He does not yet speak out, either of the crime or the criminal, but raises their expectations of a further discovery.

1. He intimates to them that they were not all right. He had said (Joh 13:10), You are clean, but not all. So here, I speak not of you all. Note, What is said of the excellencies of Christ's disciples cannot be said of all that are called so. The word of Christ is a distinguishing word, which separates between cattle and cattle, and will distinguish thousands into hell who flattered themselves with hopes that they were going to heaven. I speak not of you all; you my disciples and followers. Note, There is a mixture of bad with good in the best societies, a Judas among the apostles; it will be so till we come to the blessed society into which shall enter nothing unclean or disguised.

2. That he himself knew who were right, and who were not: I know whom I have chosen, who the few are that are chosen among the many that are called with the common call. Note, (1.) Those that are chosen, Christ himself had the choosing of them; he nominated the persons he undertook for. (2.) Those that are chosen are known to Christ, for he never forgets any whom he has once had in his thoughts of love, 2Ti 2:19.

3. That in the treachery of him that proved false to him the scripture was fulfilled, which takes off very much both the surprise and offence of the thing. Christ took one into his family whom he foresaw to be a traitor, and did not by effectual grace prevent his being so, that the scripture might be fulfilled. Let it not therefore be a stumbling-block to any; for, though it do not at all lessen Judas's offence, it may lessen our offence at it. The scripture referred to is David's complaint of the treachery of some of his enemies; the Jewish expositors, and ours from them generally understand it of Ahithophel: Grotius thinks it intimates that the death of Judas would be like that of Ahithophel. But because that psalm speaks of David's sickness, of which we read nothing at the time of Ahithophel's deserting him, it may better be understood of some other friend of his, that proved false to him. This our Saviour applies to Judas. (1.) Judas, as an apostle, was admitted to the highest privilege: he did eat bread with Christ. He was familiar with him, and favoured by him, was one of his family, one of those with whom he was intimately conversant. David saith of his treacherous friend, He did eat of my bread; but Christ, being poor, had no bread he could properly call his own. He saith, He did eat bread with me; such as he had by the kindness of his friends, that ministered to him, his disciples had their share of, Judas among the rest. Wherever he went, Judas was welcome with him, did not dine among servants, but sat at table with his Master, ate of the same dish, drank of the same cup, and in all respects fared as he fared. He ate miraculous bread with him, when the loaves were multiplied, ate the passover with him. Note, All that eat bread with Christ are not his disciples indeed. See 1Co 10:3-5. (2.) Judas, as an apostate, was guilty of the basest treachery: he lifted up the heel against Christ. [1.] He forsook him, turned his back upon him, went out from the society of his disciples, Joh 13:30. [2.] He despised him, shook off the dust of his feet against him, in contempt of him and his gospel. Nay, [3.] He became an enemy to him; spurned at him, as wrestlers do at their adversaries, whom they would overthrow. Note, It is no new thing for those that were Christ's seeming friends to prove his real enemies. Those who pretended to magnify him magnify themselves against him, and thereby prove themselves guilty, not only of the basest ingratitude, but the basest treachery and perfidiousness.

II. He gives them a reason why he told them beforehand of the treachery of Judas (Joh 13:19): " Now I tell you before it come, before Judas has begun to put his wicked plot in execution, that when it is come to pass you may, instead of stumbling at it, be confirmed in your belief that I am he, he that should come."1. By his clear and certain foresight of things to come, of which in this, as in other instances, he gave incontestable proof, he proved himself to be the true God, before whom all things are naked and open. Christ foretold that Judas would betray him when there was no ground to suspect such a thing, and so proved himself the eternal Word, which is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The prophecies of the New Testament concerning the apostasy of the latter times (which we have, 2 Th. 2; 1 Tim. 4, and in the Apocalypse) being evidently accomplished is a proof that those writings were divinely inspired, and confirms our faith in the whole canon of scripture. 2. By this application of the types and prophecies of the Old Testament to himself, he proved himself to be the true Messiah, to whom all the prophets bore witness. Thus it was written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and he suffered just as it was written, Luk 24:25, Luk 24:26; Joh 8:28.

III. He gives a word of encouragement to his apostles, and all his ministers whom he employs in his service (Joh 13:20): He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me. The purport of these words is the same with what we have in other scriptures, but it is not easy to make out their coherence here. Christ had told his disciples that they must humble and abase themselves. "Now,"saith he, "though there may be those that will despise you for your condescension, yet there will be those that will do you honour, and shall be honoured for so doing."Those who know themselves dignified by Christ's commission may be content to be vilified in the world's opinion. Or, he intended to silence the scruples of those who, because there was a traitor among the apostles, would be shy of receiving any of them; for, if one of them was false to his Master, to whom would any of them be true? Ex uno disce omnes - They are all alike. No, as Christ will think never the worse of them for Judas's crime, so he will stand by them, and own them, and will raise up such as shall receive them. Those that had received Judas when he was a preacher, and perhaps were converted and edified by his preaching, were never the worse, nor should reflect upon it with any regret, though he afterwards proved a traitor; for he was one whom Christ sent. We cannot know what men are, much less what they will be, but those who appear to be sent of Christ we must receive, till the contrary appear. Though some, by entertaining strangers, have entertained robbers unawares, yet we must still be hospitable, for thereby some have entertained angels. The abuses put upon our charity, though ordered with ever so much discretion, will neither justify our uncharitableness, nor lose us the reward of our charity. 1. We are here encouraged to receive ministers as sent of Christ: " He that receiveth whomsoever I send, though weak and poor, and subject to like passions as others (for as the law, so the gospel, makes men priests that have infirmity ), yet if he deliver my message, and be regularly called and appointed to do so, and as an officer give himself to the word and prayer, he that entertains him shall be owned as a friend of mine."Christ was now leaving the world, but he would leave an order of men to be his agents, to deliver his word, and those who receive this, in the light and love of it, receive him. To believe the doctrine of Christ, and obey his law, and accept the salvation offered upon the terms proposed; this is receiving those whom Christ sends, and it is receiving Christ Jesus the Lord himself. 2. We are here encouraged to receive Christ as sent of God: He that thus receiveth me, that receiveth Christ in his ministers, receiveth the Father also, for they come upon his errand likewise, baptizing in the name of the Father, as well as of the Son. Or, in general, He that receiveth me as his prince and Saviour receiveth him that sent me as his portion and felicity. Christ was sent of God, and in embracing his religion we embrace the only true religion.

IV. Christ more particularly notifies to them the plot which one of their number was now hatching against him (Joh 13:21): When Jesus had thus said in general, to prepare them for a more particular discovery, he was troubled in spirit, and showed it by some gesture or sign, and he testified, he solemnly declared it ( cum animo testandi - with the solemnity of a witness on oath ), " One of you shall betray me; one of you my apostles and constant followers."None indeed could be said to betray him but those in whom he reposed a confidence, and who were the witnesses of his retirements. This did not determine Judas to the sin by any fatal necessity; for, though the event did follow according to the prediction, yet not from the prediction. Christ is not the author of sin; yet as to this heinous sin of Judas, 1. Christ foresaw it; for even that which is secret and future, and hidden from the eyes of all living, naked and open before the eyes of Christ. He knows what is in men better than they do themselves (2Ki 8:12), and therefore sees what will be done by them. I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, Isa 48:8. 2. He foretold it, not only for the sake of the rest of the disciples, but for the sake of Judas himself, that he might take warning, and recover himself out of the snare of the devil. Traitors proceed not in their plots when they find they are discovered; surely Judas, when he finds that his Master knows his design, will retreat in time; if not, it will aggravate his condemnation. 3. He spoke of it with a manifest concern; he was troubled in spirit when he mentioned it. He had often spoken of his own sufferings and death, without any such trouble of spirit as he here manifested when he spoke of the ingratitude and treachery of Judas. This touched him in a tender part. Note, The falls and miscarriages of the disciples of Christ are a great trouble of spirit to their Master; the sins of Christians are the grief of Christ. "What! One of you betray me? You that have received from me such distinguishing favours; you that I had reason to think would be firm to me, that have professed such a respect for me; what iniquity have you found in me that one of you should betray me?"This went to his heart, as the undutifulness of children grieves those who have nourished and brought them up, Isa 1:2. See Psa 95:10; Isa 63:10.

V. The disciples quickly take the alarm. They knew their Master would neither deceive them nor jest with them; and therefore looked one upon another, with a manifest concern, doubting of whom he spake. 1. By looking one upon another they evinced the trouble they were in upon this notice given them; it struck such a horror upon them that they knew not well which way to look, nor what to say. They saw their Master troubled, and therefore they were troubled. This was at a feast where they were cheerfully entertained; but hence we must be taught to rejoice with trembling, and as though we rejoiced not. When David wept for his son's rebellion, all his followers wept with him (2Sa 15:30); so Christ's disciples here. Note, That which grieves Christ is, and should be, a grief to all that are his, particularly the scandalous miscarriages of those that are called by his name: Who is offended, and I burn not? 2. Hereby they endeavoured to discover the traitor. They looked wistfully in one another's face, to see who blushed, or, by some disorder in the countenance, manifested guilt in the heart, upon this notice; but, while those who were faithful had their consciences so clear that they could lift up their faces without spot, he that was false had his conscience so seared that he was not ashamed, neither could he blush, and so no discovery could be made in this way. Christ thus perplexed his disciples for a time, and put them into confusion, that he might humble them, and prove them, might excite in them a jealousy of themselves, and an indignation at the baseness of Judas. It is good for us sometimes to be put to a gaze, to be put to a pause.

VI. The disciples were solicitous to get their Master to explain himself, and to tell them particularly whom he meant; for nothing but this can put them out of their present pain, for each of them thought he had as much reason to suspect himself as any of his brethren; now,

1. Of all the disciples John was most fit to ask, because he was the favourite, and sat next his Master (Joh 13:23): There was leaning on Jesus's bosom one of the disciples whom Jesus loved. It appears that this was John, by comparing Joh 21:20, Joh 21:24. Observe, (1.) The particular kindness which Jesus had for him; he was known by this periphrasis, that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved. He loved them all (Joh 13:1), but John was particularly dear to him. His name signifies gracious. Daniel, who was honoured with the revelations of the Old Testament, as John of the New, was a man greatly beloved, Dan 9:23. Note, Among the disciples of Christ some are dearer to him than others. (2.) His place and posture at this time: He was leaning on Jesus's bosom. Some say that it was the fashion in those countries to sit at meat in a leaning posture, so that the second lay in the bosom of the first, and so on, which does not seem probable to me, for in such a posture as this they could neither eat nor drink conveniently; but, whether this was the case or not, John now leaned on Christ's bosom, and it seems to be an extraordinary expression of endearment used at this time. Note, There are some of Christ's disciples whom he lays in his bosom, who have more free and intimate communion with him than others. The Father loved the Son, and laid him in his bosom (Joh 1:18), and believers are in like manner one with Christ, Joh 17:21. This honour all the saints shall have shortly in the bosom of Abraham. Those who lay themselves at Christ's feet, he will lay in his bosom. (3.) Yet he conceals his name, because he himself was the penman of the story. He put this instead of his name, to show that he was pleased with it; it is his title of honour, that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved, as in David's and Solomon's court there was one that was the king's friend; yet he does not put his name down, to show that he was not proud of it, nor would seem to boast of it. Paul in a like case saith, I knew a man in Christ.

2. Of all the disciples Peter was most forward to know, Joh 13:24. Peter, sitting at some distance, beckoned to John, by some sign or other, to ask. Peter was generally the leading man, most apt to put himself forth; and, where men's natural tempers lead them to be thus bold in answering and asking, if kept under the laws of humility and wisdom, they make men very serviceable. God gives his gifts variously; but that the forward men in the church may not think too well of themselves, nor the modest be discouraged, it must be noted that it was not Peter, but John, that was the beloved disciple. Peter was desirous to know, not only that he might be sure it was not he, but that, knowing who it was, they might withdraw from him, and guard against him, and, if possible, prevent his design. It were a desirable thing, we should think, to know who in the church will deceive us; yet let this suffice - Christ knows, though we do not. The reason why Peter did not himself ask was because John had a much fairer opportunity, by the advantage of his seat at table, to whisper the question into the ear of Christ, and to receive a like private answer. It is good to improve our interest in those that are near to Christ, and to engage their prayers for us. Do we know any that we have reason to think lie in Christ's bosom? Let us beg of them to speak a good word for us.

3. The question was asked accordingly (Joh 13:25): He then, lying at the breast of Jesus, and so having the convenience of whispering with him, saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Now here John shows, (1.) A regard to his fellow-disciple, and to the motion he made. Though Peter had not the honour he had at this time, yet he did not therefore disdain to take the hint and intimation he gave him. Note, Those who lie in Christ's bosom may often learn from those who lie at his feet something that will be profitable for them, and be reminded of that which they did not of themselves think of. John was willing to gratify Peter herein, having so fair an opportunity for it. As every one hath received the gift, so let him minister the same for a common good, Rom 12:6. (2.) A reverence of his Master. Though he whispered this in Christ's ear, yet he called him Lord; the familiarity he was admitted to did not at all lessen his respect for his Master. It becomes us to use a reverence in expression, and to observe a decorum even in our secret devotions, which no eye is a witness to, as well as in public assemblies. The more intimate communion gracious souls have with Christ, the more sensible they are of his worthiness and their own unworthiness, as Gen 18:27.

4. Christ gave a speedy answer to this question, but whispered it in John's ear; for it appears (Joh 13:29) that the rest were still ignorant of the matter. He it is to whom I shall give a sop, psōmion - a morsel, a crust, when I have dipped it in the sauce. And when he had dipped the sop, John strictly observing his motion, he gave it to Judas; and Judas took it readily enough, not suspecting the design of it, but glad of a savoury bit, to make up his mouth with. (1.) Christ notified the traitor by a sign. He could have told John by name who he was (The adversary and enemy is that wicked Judas, he is the traitor, and none but he); but thus he would exercise the observation of John, and intimate what need his ministers have of a spirit of discerning; for the false brethren we are to stand upon our guard against are not made known to us by words, but by signs; they are to be known to us by their fruits, by their spirits; it requires great diligence and care to form a right judgment upon them. (2.) That sign was a sop which Christ gave him, a very proper sign, because it was the fulfilling of the scripture (Joh 13:18) that the traitor should be one that ate bread with him, that was at this time a fellow-commoner with him. It had likewise a significancy in it, and teaches us, [1.] That Christ sometimes gives sops to traitors; worldly riches, honours, and pleasures are sops (if I may so speak), which Providence sometimes gives into the hands of wicked men. Judas perhaps thought himself a favourite because he had the sop, like Benjamin at Joseph's table, a mess by himself; thus the prosperity of fools, like a stupifying sop, helps to destroy them. [2.] That we must not be outrageous against those whom we know to be very malicious against us. Christ carved to Judas as kindly as to any at the table, though he knew he was then plotting his death. If thine enemy hunger, feed him; this is to do as Christ does.

VII. Judas himself, instead of being convinced hereby of his wickedness, was the more confirmed in it, and the warning given him was to him a savour of death unto death; for it follows,

1. The devil hereupon took possession of him (Joh 13:27): After the sop, Satan entered into him: not to make him melancholy, nor drive him distracted, which was the effect of his possessing some; not to hurry him into the fire, nor into the water; happy had it been for him if that had been the worst of it, or if with the swine he had been choked in the sea; but Satan entered into him to possess him with a prevailing prejudice against Christ and his doctrine, and a contempt of him, as one whose life was of small value, to excite in him a covetous desire of the wages of unrighteousness and a resolution to stick at nothing for the obtaining of them. But,

(1.) Was not Satan in him before? How then is it said that now Satan entered into him? Judas was all along a devil (Joh 6:70), a son of perdition, but now Satan gained a more full possession of him, had a more abundant entrance into him. His purpose to betray his Master was now ripened into a fixed resolution; now he returned with seven other spirits more wicked than himself, Luk 11:26. Note, [1.] Though the devil is in every wicked man that does his works (Eph 2:2), yet sometimes he enters more manifestly and more powerfully than at other times, when he puts them upon some enormous wickedness, which humanity and natural conscience startle at. [2.] Betrayers of Christ have much of the devil in them. Christ speaks of the sin of Judas as greater than that of any of his persecutors.

(2.) How came Satan to enter into him after the sop? Perhaps he was presently aware that it was the discovery of him, and it made him desperate in his resolutions. Many are made worse by the gifts of Christ's bounty, and are confirmed in their impenitency by that which should have led them to repentance. The coals of fire heaped upon their heads, instead of melting them, harden them.

2. Christ hereupon dismissed him, and delivered him up to his own heart's lusts: Then said Jesus unto him, What thou doest, do quickly. This is not to be understood as either advising him to his wickedness or warranting him in it; but either, (1.) As abandoning him to the conduct and power of Satan. Christ knew that Satan had entered into him, and had peaceable possession; and now he gives him up as hopeless. The various methods Christ had used for his conviction were ineffectual; and therefore, "What thou doest thou wilt do quickly; if thou art resolved to ruin thyself, go on, and take what comes."Note, When the evil spirit is willingly admitted, the good Spirit justly withdraws. Or, (2.) As challenging him to do his worst: "Thou art plotting against me, put thy plot in execution and welcome, the sooner the better, I do not fear thee, I am ready for thee."Note, our Lord Jesus was very forward to suffer and die for us, and was impatient of delay in the perfecting of his undertaking. Christ speaks of Judas's betraying him as a thing he was now doing, though he was only purposing it. Those who are contriving and designing mischief are, in God's account, doing mischief.

3. Those that were at table understood not what he meant, because they did not hear what he whispered to John (Joh 13:28, Joh 13:29): No man at table, neither the disciples nor any other of the guests, except John, knew for what intent he spoke this to him. (1.) They did not suspect that Christ said it to Judas as a traitor, because it did not enter into their heads that Judas was such a one, or would prove so. Note, It is an excusable dulness in the disciples of Christ not to be quick-sighted in their censures. Most are ready enough to say, when they hear harsh things spoken in general, Now such a one is meant, and now such a one; but Christ's disciples were so well taught to love one another that they could not easily learn to suspect one another; charity thinks no evil. (2.) They therefore took it for granted that he said it to him as a trustee, or treasurer of the household, giving him order for the laying out of some money. Their surmises in this case discover to us for what uses and purposes our Lord Jesus commonly directed payments out of that little stock he had, and so teach us how to honour the Lord with our substance. They concluded something was to be laid out, either, [1.] In works of piety: Buy those things that we have need of against the feast. Though he borrowed a room to eat the passover in, yet he bought in provision for it. That is to be reckoned well bestowed which is laid out upon those things we have need of for the maintenance of God's ordinances among us; and we have the less reason to grudge that expense now because our gospel-worship is far from being so chargeable as the legal worship was. [2.] Or in works of charity: That he should give something to the poor. By this it appears, First, That our Lord Jesus, though he lived upon alms himself (Luk 8:3), yet gave alms to the poor, a little out of a little. Though he might very well be excused, not only because he was poor himself, but because he did so much good in other ways, curing so many gratis; yet, to set us an example, he gave, for the relief of the poor, out of that which he had for the subsistence of his family; see Eph 4:28. Secondly, That the time of a religious feast was thought a proper time for works of charity. When he celebrated the passover he ordered something for the poor. When we experience God's bounty to us, this should make us bountiful to the poor.

4. Judas hereupon sets himself vigorously to pursue his design against him: He went away. Notice is taken,

(1.) Of his speedy departure: He went out presently, and quitted the house, [1.] For fear of being more plainly discovered to the company, for, if he were, he expected they would all fall upon him, and be the death of him, or at least of his project. [2.] He went out as one weary of Christ's company and the society of his apostles. Christ needed not to expel him, he expelled himself. Note, Withdrawing from the communion of the faithful is commonly the first overt-act of a backslider, and the beginning of an apostasy. [3.] He went out to prosecute his design, to look for those with whom he was to make his bargain, and to settle the agreement with them. Now that Satan had got into him he hurried him on with precipitation, lest he should see his error and repent of it.

(2.) Of the time of his departure: It was night. [1.] Though it was night, an unseasonable time for business, yet, Satan having entered into him, he made no difficulty of the coldness and darkness of the night. This should shame us out of our slothfulness and cowardice in the service of Christ, that the devil's servants are so earnest and venturous in his service. [2.] Because it was night, and this gave him advantage of privacy and concealment. He was not willing to be seen treating with the chief priests, and therefore chose the dark night as the fittest time for such works of darkness. Those whose deeds are evil love darkness rather than light. See Job 24:13, etc.

Barclay: Joh 13:1-17

We shall have to look at this passage in far more aspects than one, but first of all we must take it as a whole.

Few incidents in the gospel story so reveal the character of Jesus and so perfectly show his love. When we think of what Jesus might have been and of what he might have done the supreme wonder of what he was and did comes home to us.

(i) Jesus knew all things had been given into his hands. He knew that his hour of humiliation was near, but he knew that his hour of glory was also near. Such a consciousness might well have filled him with pride; and yet, with the knowledge of the power and the glory that were his, he washed his disciples' feet. At that moment when he might have had supreme pride, he had supreme humility. Love is always like that. When, for example, someone falls ill, the person who loves him will perform the most menial services and delight to do them, because love is like that. Sometimes men feel that they are too distinguished to do the humble things, too important to do some menial task. Jesus was not so. He knew that he was Lord of all, and yet he washed his disciples' feet.

(ii) Jesus knew that he had come from God and that he was going to God. He might well have had a certain contempt for men and for the things of this world. He might well have thought that he was finished with the world now, for he was on the way to God. It was just at that time when God was nearest to him that Jesus went to the depths and the limits of his service of men. To wash the feet of the guests at a feast was the office of a slave. The disciples of the Rabbis were supposed to render their masters personal service, but a service like this would never have been dreamed of. The wonderful thing about Jesus was that his nearness to God, so far from separating him from men, brought him nearer than ever to them.

It is always true that there is no one closer to men than the man who is close to God. T. R. Glover said of certain clever intellectuals: "They thought they were being religious when they were merely being fastidious." There is a legend of St. Francis of Assisi. In his early days he was very wealthy; nothing but the best was good enough for him; he was an aristocrat of the aristocrats. But he was ill at ease and there was no peace in his soul. One day he was riding alone outside the city when he saw a leper, a mass of sores, a horrible sight. Ordinarily the fastidious Francis would have recoiled in horror from this hideous wreck of humanity. But something moved within him; he dismounted from his horse and flung his arms around the leper; and as he embraced him the leper turned into the figure of Jesus. The nearer we are to suffering humanity, the nearer we are to God.

(iii) Jesus knew this also. He was well aware that he was about to be betrayed. Such knowledge might so easily have turned him to bitterness and hatred; but it made his heart run out in greater love than ever. The astounding thing was that the more men hurt him, the more Jesus loved them. It is so easy and so natural to resent wrong and to grow bitter under insult and injury; but Jesus met the greatest injury and the supreme disloyalty, with the greatest humility and the supreme love.

Barclay: Joh 13:1-17

There is more in the background of this passage than even John tells us. If we turn to Luke's account of the last meal together, we find the tragic sentence: "A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as greatest" (Luk 22:24). Even within sight of the Cross, the disciples were still arguing about matters of precedence and prestige.

It may well be that this very argument produced the situation which made Jesus act as he did. The roads of Palestine were unsurfaced and uncleaned. In dry weather they were inches deep in dust and in wet they were liquid mud. The shoes ordinary people wore were sandals, which were simply soles held on to the foot by a few straps. They gave little protection against the dust or the mud of the roads. For that reason there were always great waterpots at the door of a house; and a servant was there with a ewer and a towel to wash the soiled feet of the guests as they came in. Jesus' little company of friends had no servants. The duties which servants would carry out in wealthier circles they must have shared among each other. It may well be that on the night of this last meal together they had got themselves into such a state of competitive pride that not one of them would accept the duty of seeing that the water and the towels were there to wash the feet of the company as they came in; and Jesus mended their omission in the most vivid and dramatic way.

He himself did what none of them was prepared to do. Then he said: "You see what I have done. You call me your master and your Lord; and you are quite right; for so I am; and yet I am prepared to do this for you. Surely you don't think that a pupil deserves more honour than a teacher, or a servant than a master. Surely if I do this, you ought to be prepared to do it. I am giving you an example of how you ought to behave towards each other."

This ought to make us think. So often, even in churches, trouble arises because someone does not get his place. So often even ecclesiastical dignitaries are offended because they did not receive the precedence to which their office entitled them. Here is the lesson that there is only one kind of greatness, the greatness of service. The world is full of people who are standing on their dignity when they ought to be kneeling at the feet of their brethren. In every sphere of life desire for prominence and unwillingness to take a subordinate place wreck the scheme of things. A player is one day omitted from the team and refuses to play any more. An aspiring politician is passed over for some office to which he thought he had a right and refuses to accept any subordinate office. A member of a choir is not given a solo and will not sing any more. In any society it may happen that someone is given a quite unintentional slight and either explodes in anger or broods in sulkiness for days afterwards. When we are tempted to think of our dignity, our prestige, our rights, let us see again the picture of the Son of God, girt with a towel, kneeling at his disciples' feet.

That man is truly great who has this regal humility, which makes him both servant and king among men. In The Beloved Captain by Donald Hankey, there is a passage which describes how the beloved captain cared for his men after a route march. "We all knew instinctively that he was our superior--a man of finer fibre than ourselves, a 'toff' in his own right. I suppose that was why he could be so humble without loss of dignity. For he was humble, too, if that is the right word, and I think it is. No trouble of ours was too small for him to attend to. When we started route marches, for instance, and our feet were blistered and sore, as they often were at first, you would have thought that they were his own feet from the trouble he took. Of course after the march there was always an inspection of feet. That is the routine. But with him it was no mere routine. He came into our room, and, if any one had a sore foot, he would kneel down on the floor and look at it as carefully as if he had been a doctor. Then he would prescribe, and the remedies were ready at hand, being borne by a sergeant. If a blister had to be lanced, he would very likely lance it himself there and then, so as to make sure it was done with a clean needle and that no dirt was allowed to get in. There was no affectation about this, no striving after effect. It was simply that he felt that our feet were pretty important, and that he knew that we were pretty careless. So he thought it best at the start to see to the matter himself Nevertheless, there was in our eyes something almost religious about this care for our feet. It seemed to have a touch of Christ about it, and we loved and honoured him the more." The strange thing is that it is the man who stoops like that--like Christ--whom men in the end honour as a king, and the memory of whom they will not willingly let die.

Barclay: Joh 13:1-17

We have already seen that in John we have always to be looking for two meanings, the meaning which lies on the surface and the meaning which is beneath the surface. In this story there is undoubtedly a second meaning. On the surface it is a dramatic and unforgettable lesson in humility. But there is more to it than that.

There is one very difficult passage. At first Peter refuses to allow Jesus to wash his feet. Jesus tells him that unless he accepts this washing, he will have no part with him. Peter then begs that not only his feet, but his hands and his head should also be washed. But Jesus tells him that it is enough that his feet should be washed. The difficult sentence and the one with an inner meaning, is: "He who has been bathed has need only to have his feet washed."

Beyond doubt there is a reference to Christian baptism here. "Unless you are washed you can have no part in me" is a way of saying: "Unless you pass through the gate of baptism, you have no part in the Church."

The point is this. It was the custom that before people went to a feast they bathed themselves. When they came to the house of their host, they did not need to be bathed again; all they needed was to have their feet washed. The washing of the feet was the ceremony which preceded entry into the house where they were to be guests. It was what we might call the washing of entry into the house. So Jesus says to Peter: "It is not the bathing of your body that you require. That you can do for yourself. What you need is the washing which marks entry into the household of the faith." This explains another thing. Peter at first is going to refuse to allow Jesus to wash his feet. Jesus says that if he does, he will have no part in him. It is as if Jesus said: "Peter, are you going to be too proud to let me do this for you? If you are, you will lose everything."

In the early Church, and still today, the way in is the way of baptism; baptism is what we might call the washing of entry. This is not to say that a man cannot be saved unless he is baptized. But it does mean that if he is able to be baptized and is too proud to enter by that gate, his pride shuts him out from the family of the faith.

Things are different now. In the early days it was grown men and women who came to be baptized because they were coming direct from heathenism into the faith. Now in many of our churches we bring our children too. But in this passage Jesus was drawing a picture of the washing which is the entry to the Church and telling men that they must not be too proud to submit to it.

Barclay: Joh 13:18-20

There are three things stressed in this passage.

(i) The sheer cruelty of Judas' disloyalty is vividly pictured in a way which would be specially poignant to an eastern mind. Jesus used a quotation from Psa 41:9. In full the quotation runs: "Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me." In the east to eat bread with anyone was a sign of friendship and an act of loyalty. 2Sa 9:7, 2Sa 9:13 tell how David granted it to Mephibosheth to eat bread at his table, when he might well have eliminated him as a descendant of Saul. 1Ki 18:19tells how the prophets of Baal ate bread at the table of Jezebel. For one who had eaten bread at someone's table to turn against the person, to whom by that very act he had pledged his friendship, was a bitter thing. This disloyalty of friends is for the Psalmist the sorest of all hurts. "It is not an enemy who taunts me--then I could bear it--it is not an adversary who deals insolently with me--then I could hide from him. But it is you, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. We used to hold sweet converse together; within God's house we walked in fellowship" (Psa 55:12-14).

There is all the poignant sorrow in the world when a friend is guilty of such heart-breaking disloyalty. The very phrase that is used is full of cruelty. "He lifted up his heel against me." Literally the Hebrew is, "He made great the heel," and it is a phrase which describes "brutal violence." In this passage there is no hint of anger, only of sorrow; Jesus, with a last appeal, is revealing the wound upon his heart to Judas.

(ii) This passage also stresses the fact that all this tragedy is somehow within the purpose of God, and that it is fully and unquestionably accepted by Jesus. It was as Scripture said it would be. There was never any doubt that the redeeming of the world would cost the broken heart of God. Jesus knew what was happening. He knew the cost and he was ready to pay it. He did not want the disciples to think that he was caught up in a blind web of circumstances from which he could not escape. He was not going to be killed; he was choosing to die. At the moment they did not, and could not, see that, but he wanted to be sure that a day would come when they would look back and remember and understand.

(iii) If this passage stresses the bitterness of disloyalty, it also stresses the glory of fidelity. Some day these same disciples would take the message of Jesus out to the world. When they did, they would be nothing less than the representatives of God himself. An ambassador does not go out as a private individual, armed with only his own personal qualities and qualifications. He goes out with all the honour and glory of his country upon him. To listen to him is to listen to his country; to honour him is to honour the country he represents; to welcome him is to welcome the ruler who sent him out. The great honour and the great responsibility of being a pledged Christian is that we stand in the world for Jesus Christ. We speak for him; we act for him. The honour of the Eternal is in our hands.

Barclay: Joh 13:21-30

When we visualize this scene certain most dramatic things emerge.

The treachery of Judas is seen at its worst. He must have been the perfect actor and the perfect hypocrite. One thing is clear--if the other disciples had known what Judas was about, he would never have left that room alive. All the time Judas must have been putting on an act of love and loyalty which deceived everyone except Jesus. He was not only a bare-faced villain; he was a suave hypocrite. There is warning here. By our outward actions we may deceive men; but there is no hiding things from the eye of Christ.

There is more. When we understand aright what was happening, we can see that there was appeal after appeal to Judas. First, there were the seating arrangements at the meal. The Jews did not sit at table; they reclined. The table was a low solid block, with couches round it. It was shaped like a "U" and the place of the host was in the centre. They reclined on their left side, resting on the left elbow, thus leaving the right hand free to deal with the food. Sitting in such a way, a man's head was literally in the breast of the person reclining on his left. Jesus would be sitting in the place of the host, at the centre of the single side of the low table. The disciple whom Jesus loved must have been sitting on his right, for as he lent on his elbow at the table, his head was in Jesus' breast.

The disciple whom Jesus loved is never named. Some have thought that he was Lazarus, for Jesus loved Lazarus (Joh 11:36). Some have thought that he was the rich young ruler, for Jesus loved him (Mar 10:21); and it has been imagined that in the end he did decide to stake everything on Jesus. Some have thought that he was some otherwise unknown young disciple who was specially near and dear to Jesus. Some have thought that he was not a flesh and blood person at all, but only an ideal picture of what the perfect disciple ought to be. But the general opinion has always been that the beloved disciple was none other than John himself; and we may well believe that.

But it is the place of Judas that is of special interest. It is quite clear that Jesus could speak to him privately without the others overhearing. If that be so, there is only one place Judas could have been occupying. He must have been on Jesus' left, so that, just as John's head was in Jesus' breast, Jesus' head was in Judas'. The revealing thing is that the place on the left of the host was the place of highest honour, kept for the most intimate friend. When that meal began, Jesus must have said to Judas: "Judas, come and sit beside me tonight; I want specially to talk to you." The very inviting of Judas to that seat was an appeal.

But there is more. For the host to offer the guest a special tit-bit, a special morsel from the dish, was again a sign of special friendship. When Boaz wished to show how much he honoured Ruth, he invited her to come and dip her morsel in the wine (Rth 2:14). T. E. Lawrence told how when he sat with the Arabs in their tents, sometimes the Arab chief would tear a choice piece of fat mutton from the whole sheep before them and hand it to him (often a most embarrassing favour to a western palate, for it had to be eaten!) When Jesus handed the morsel to Judas, again it was a mark of special affection. And we note that even when Jesus did this the disciples did not gather the import of his words. That surely shows that Jesus was so much in the habit of doing this that it seemed nothing unusual. Judas had always been picked out for special affection.

There is tragedy here. Again and again Jesus appealed to that dark heart, and again and again Judas remained unmoved. God save us from being completely impervious to the appeal of love.

Barclay: Joh 13:21-30

So this tragic drama played itself out to the end. Again and again Jesus showed his affection to Judas. Again and again Jesus tried to save him from what he was planning to do.

Then quite suddenly the crucial moment came, the moment when the love of Jesus admitted defeat. "Judas," he said, "hurry on what you propose to do." There was no point in further delay. Why carry on this useless appeal in the mounting tension? If it was to be done, it were better done quickly.

Still the disciples did not see. They thought Judas was being despatched to make the arrangements for the feast. It was always the custom at the Passover that those who had shared with those who had not. It was the time of all times when people gave to the poor. To this day it is the custom in many churches to take a special offering at Communion services for those in need. So the disciples thought that Jesus was sending Judas out to give the usual present to the poor, that they too might be enabled to celebrate the Passover.

When Judas received the morsel, the devil entered into him. It is a terrible thing that what was meant to be love's appeal became hate's dynamic. That is what the devil can do. He can take the loveliest things and twist them until they become the agents of hell. He can take love and turn it into lust; he can take holiness and turn it into pride; he can take discipline and turn it into sadistic cruelty; he can take affection and turn it into spineless complacence. We must be on the watch so that in our lives the devil never warps the lovely things until he can use them for his own purposes.

Judas went out--and it was night. John has a way of using words in the most pregnant way. It was night for the day was late; but there was another night there. It is always night when a man goes from Christ to follow his own purposes. It is always night when a man listens to the call of evil rather than the summons of good. It is always night when hate puts out the light of love. It is always night when a man turns his back on Jesus.

If we submit ourselves to Christ we walk in the light; if we turn our backs on him we go into the dark. The way of light and the way of dark are set before us. God give us wisdom to choose aright--for in the dark a man always goes lost.

Constable: Joh 1:19--13:1

II. Jesus' public ministry 1:19--12:50

The first part of the body of John's Gospel records Jesus' public ministry to the multitudes in Palestine who were primarily Jewish. Some writers have called this section of the Gospel "the book of signs" because it features seven miracles that signify various things about Jesus.

"Signs are miraculous works performed or mentioned to illustrate spiritual principles."⁶⁹

Often John recorded a lengthy discourse that followed the miracle, in which Jesus explained its significance to the crowds. This section also contains two extended conversations that Jesus had with two individuals (chs. 3 and 4).

"The opening of the narrative proper might well be understood as the account of the happenings of one momentous week. John does not stress the point, but he does give notes of time that seem to indicate this. The first day is taken up with a deputation from Jerusalem that interrogates the Baptist. The next day' we have John's public pointing out of Jesus (vv. 29-34). Day 3 tells of two disciples of the Baptist who followed Jesus (vv. 35-40). It seems probable that verse 41 takes us to day 4 . . . It tells of Andrew's bringing of Peter to Jesus. Day 5 is the day when Philip and Nathanael come to him (vv. 43-51). The marriage in Cana is two days after the previous incident (i.e., the sixth and seventh days, 2:1-11). If we are correct in thus seeing the happenings of one momentous week set forth at the beginning of this Gospel, we must go on to ask what significance is attached to this beginning. The parallel with the days of creation in Genesis 1 suggests itself, and is reinforced by the In the beginning' that opens both chapters. Just as the opening words of this chapter recall Genesis 1, so it is with the framework. Jesus is to engage in a new creation. The framework unobtrusively suggests creative activity."⁷⁰

Constable: Joh 13:1--17:26

III. Jesus' private ministry chs. 13--17

The Synoptics integrate Jesus' ministry to the masses and His training of the Twelve, but John separated these two aspects of His ministry. There is obviously some overlapping in the fourth Gospel, but the present section contains ministry that Jesus directed almost exclusively to the Twelve. The Synoptics contain more of Jesus' teaching of the Twelve during His public ministry whereas John gave us more of His teaching in the upper room. This instruction was specifically to prepare the Twelve for leadership in the church. Jesus gave it after Israel's official and final rejection of Him resulted in the postponement of the messianic kingdom.

In the first major section of this Gospel Jesus customarily performed a miracle and then explained its significance. In this section He did the reverse. He explained the significance of His death and then went to the cross and arose from the dead.

Constable: Joh 13:1-30

A. The Last Supper 13:1-30

John recorded more of what Jesus said and did in the upper room than any of the other Gospel evangelists. Much of this was a discourse on the disciples' future. Jesus prefaced this instruction with other lessons for them.

John's description of the time of the Last Supper seems to conflict with that of the Synoptics. They present it as happening on Thursday evening, but many students of the fourth Gospel have interpreted John as locating it on Wednesday evening (13:1, 27; 18:28; 19:14, 31, 36, 42). Resolution of the apparent contradictions that these seven verses pose will follow in the exposition of them. The Last Supper was a Passover meal that took place on Thursday evening.

John's omission of the institution of the Lord's Supper has disturbed some readers of the fourth Gospel, especially sacramentalists, those who believe that the sacraments have some part in salvation. We can only suggest that John did so because the earlier Gospels contained full accounts of it, and he wished to record new material rather than repeating. Obviously John did not record many other things that his fellow evangelists chose to include. Each evangelist chose his material in view of his distinctive purpose.

Constable: Joh 13:1-20

1. Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet 13:1-20

Jesus began His farewell address (cf. Moses, Deut. 31-33; Joshua, Josh. 23-24; Paul, Acts 20) with an object lesson.

Constable: Joh 13:1-11

The act of foot-washing 13:1-11

"In the Synoptic account of the events of this evening we read of a dispute among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. John does not record this, but he tells of an action of Jesus that rebuked their lack of humility more strikingly than any words could have done."⁴²⁵

The emphasis in verses 1-3 is on what the Lord knew, and in verses 4-5 it is on what He did.

13:1 This verse contradicts the Synoptic accounts of the Passover (e.g., Mark 14:12) only if it introduces everything in chapters 13-17. Evidently it introduces only the account of foot-washing that follows.

"As the first Passover had been the turning point in the redemption of the people of God, so the Cross would be the opening of a new era for believers."⁴²⁶

The word "world" (Gr. cosmos) is an important one in this section of the Gospel where it appears about 40 times (ch. 13-17). The world represents the mass of lost humanity out of which Jesus has called His disciples and from which He would depart shortly when He returned to heaven. Jesus loved His own who believed on Him who would remain in the world. He loved them to the end (Gr. eis telos) or utmost, the demonstration of which was His sacrificial death on the cross. "The end" can also refer to the end of Jesus' earthly life, though this interpretation seems less fitting.

Jesus' realization that His hour had come (12:23) led Him to prepare His disciples for that hour and what it would mean for them. The double emphasis on love sets the tone for the whole Upper Room Discourse.

13:2 The supper (Gr. deipnon) in view was the evening meal (v. 30). It was a Passover meal. Jesus evidently washed the disciples' feet just after the meal had been served (vv. 4, 26). The fact that Jesus washed Judas' feet after Judas had determined to betray Him shows the greatness of His love (v. 1). John's reference to Satan's role in Judas' decision heightens the point even further.

13:3-5 Jesus washed the disciple's feet fully aware of His authority from the Father, His divine origin, and His divine destiny. John's mention of this awareness stresses Jesus' humility and love still further. Washing feet in such a situation was the role of the most menial of servants (cf. 1:27).⁴²⁷ Here Jesus reversed normal roles and assumed the place of a servant rather than that of a rabbi. His act demonstrated love (v. 1), provided a model of Christian conduct (vv. 12-17), and symbolized cleansing (vv. 6-9). Jesus even dressed Himself as a slave (cf. Phil. 2:6-7). His humble service would take Him even to death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). Normally a servant would have been present to perform this task, but there were none present in the upper room since it was a secret meal. The disciples did not want to wash each other's feet since they had just been arguing about which of them was the greatest (Luke 22:24).

"We today, just like the disciples that night, desperately need this lesson on humility. The church is filled with a worldly spirit of competition and criticism as believers vie with one another to see who is the greatest. We are growing in knowledge, but not in grace (see 2 Peter 3:18). Humility is the only soil in which the graces root,' wrote Andrew Murray.⁴²⁸

13:6-7 Most of the disciples remained silent as Jesus washed their feet, but Peter could not refrain from objecting. The Greek construction of what he said stresses the contrast between Jesus and himself. Jesus encouraged Peter to submit to having his feet washed with the promise that he would understand later why Jesus was washing them (cf. vv. 12-20). As the disciples did not understand that Jesus would die, they did not understand either the lessons that led up to His death. They would understand after He arose and the Holy Spirit enlightened their minds.

13:8-9 This promise did not satisfy Peter who objected to Jesus' act in the strongest terms. Peter viewed the situation as totally unacceptable socially. Jesus' replied on the spiritual and symbolic level. He was speaking of spiritual cleansing, as the context clarifies. Peter understood Him to be speaking on the physical level. If failure to submit to Jesus' washing meant the termination of their relationship, Peter was willing to submit to a more thorough cleansing. Peter's words reflect his impetuous nature and his high regard for Jesus as well as his failure to understand and his self-will.

13:10-11 Jesus distinguished the two types of spiritual cleansing that believers experience, forensic and family forgiveness. When a person believes in Jesus as Savior, God removes all the guilt of that person for sins committed in the past, present, and future (cf. Rom. 5:1; 8:1; et al.). Jesus spoke of this forensic or legal forgiveness as a total bath (Gr. louo). After a person believes in Jesus as Savior, he or she commits sins and those sins hinder the believer's fellowship with God (cf. Matt. 6:12, 14-15; Luke 11:4; et al.). Jesus compared this family forgiveness to washing (Gr. nipto) the feet, which become dirty while walking through life. Therefore Jesus was illustrating the importance of believers obtaining spiritual cleansing from God periodically when He washed the disciples' feet. We obtain this cleansing by confessing our sins to God (1 John 1:9; cf. 1 John 2:25; 5:13). The basis for both types of forgiveness is Jesus' work on the cross.

Other views are that the foot-washing was symbolic of the complete cleansing that had already taken place or would take place. They are less probable since Jesus said that Peter already had experienced a spiritual bath but still needed his feet washed.

The unclean disciple was Judas who had not believed that Jesus was God's Son. Jesus' washing Judas' feet, therefore, was not a lesson in believers' securing spiritual cleansing but an offer of initial cleansing for him. There is nothing in the text that would warrant the conclusion that Jesus omitted washing Judas' feet.

Constable: Joh 13:12-20

The explanation of foot-washing 13:12-20

13:12 Jesus now returned to His role as the disciples' teacher, which His change of clothing and physical position indicated. He began to explain the significance of what He had done, though full comprehension would come to the disciples later (v. 7). His question prepared them for the lesson that followed.

13:13 "Teacher" translates the Hebrew "Rabbi" (Gr. didaskalos) and "Lord," the Aramaic "Mari" (Gr. kyrios). The title "Lord" took on deeper meaning after the Resurrection as Christians began to understand better who Jesus is (cf. 20:28; Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9-11). Both titles were respectful and acknowledged Jesus' superiority over His disciples.

13:14-15 Jesus had given the Twelve a lesson in humble service of one another. Specifically He took a lower role than theirs for their welfare. Similarly Jesus' disciples should willingly and happily put meeting the needs of others before maintaining their own prestige (cf. Phil. 2:1-11).

"The world asks, How many people work for you?' but the Lord asks, For how many people do you work?'"⁴²⁹

Some Christians believe that Jesus' command here is binding on the church in a literal sense. They practice foot-washing as an ordinance of the church along with water baptism and the Lord's Supper.⁴³⁰ Most Christians believe that Jesus meant that His disciples should follow His example of serving humbly rather than specifically washing each other's feet. Nowhere else in the New Testament do its writers treat foot-washing as another ordinance.⁴³¹ Moreover the attitude of humility that disciples should have toward one another was Jesus' point, not simply the performance of a ritual (cf. 15:20; Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40). Furthermore Jesus called foot-washing an example (Gr. hypodeigma, pattern) implying that there are other examples of the same attitude. This was an appropriate example of humble service in a culture where people wore sandals and soiled their feet easily. If Jesus was giving an example in modern North American culture, He probably would have selected another humble act.

13:16 Jesus again introduced a statement with a strong asseveration to indicate its importance. He put it in the form of an aphorism (cf. 15:20; Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40; 22:37).⁴³² By common consent slaves occupy an inferior role to that of their masters, and messengers (Gr. apostolos) do the same to those who send them.⁴³³ Jesus was contrasting roles, not essential worth. His point was that no disciple of His should think it beneath him or her to serve others since He, the master and sender, had humbled Himself to serve.

Jesus had repeatedly referred to the fact that the Father had sent Him and that He had come from the Father. Likewise He would send the disciples (20:21).

13:17 Knowing what one ought to do and really doing it are frequently two different things. Jesus promised God's favor on those who practice humble service, not on those who simply realize that they should be humble (cf. 8:31; 12:47-48; Heb. 12:14; James 1:22-25).⁴³⁴

"There is a form of religious piety that utters a hearty Amen!' to the most stringent demands of discipleship, but which rarely does anything about them."⁴³⁵

13:18-19 Again Jesus limited what He had said to those disciples who truly believed on Him (v. 10; cf. 6:71; 12:4; 13:2). He made this statement so that when the disciples would later remember His words they would not think that He had been mistaken about Judas. Instead they would believe that Jesus was "I am," connoting deity (Exod. 3:14; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; cf. John 8:24, 28, 58). He wanted the disciples to believe His claims before His crucifixion apparently invalidated them and before His resurrection confirmed them.

Jesus chose Judas as one of the Twelve to fulfill Psalm 41:9. The Son of David experienced treason from a close friend as the original David had. Perhaps the betrayer of David in view was Ahithophel, who also committed suicide (2 Sam. 15:12; 16:15-23; 17:3-4, 14, 23). Betrayal by one who had received table hospitality was especially heinous in the ancient Near East. Lifting up the heel against someone was probably a way of saying that one had walked out on his friend.⁴³⁶ Other possibilities are that the expression derived from the lifting up of a horse's hoof preparatory to kicking,⁴³⁷ or it alluded to shaking off the dust from the feet (cf. Luke 9:5; 10:11).⁴³⁸

13:20 Another strong asseveration underlined the statement that followed. In view of Jesus' claim to be the "I am," the disciples needed to appreciate that they enjoyed an intimate relationship with Jesus as His messengers. This relationship was similar to the one that Jesus enjoyed with His Father (cf. 5:19). Jesus was preparing them for the Great Commission (20:21; cf. v. 16). He was also warning Judas of the greatness of the sin that he anticipated committing.

Constable: Joh 13:21-30

2. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 13:21-30 (cf. Matt. 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:21-23)

Jesus had spoken only briefly about His betrayal until now (cf. 6:70; 13:10, 18). Now He gave the Twelve more specific information.

13:21-22 The prospect of His imminent betrayal and death upset Jesus visibly (Gr. etarachthe, cf. 11:33; 12:27). Clearly the Twelve had not understood that one of them would betray Him (cf. Matt. 26:21-22; Mark 14:18-19; Luke 22:21-23). Judas had been a successful hypocrite. Jesus' solemn announcement now forced Judas to act quickly or to repent.

13:23 This is John's first reference to himself as the beloved disciple (cf. 19:26-27; 20:2-9; 21:1, 20-25; Mark 14:17). He enjoyed an intimate relationship to Jesus similar to the one Jesus enjoyed with His Father (cf. 1:18). John was not claiming that Jesus loved him more than the other disciples by describing himself this way. Rather the description reveals his appreciation for God's grace in loving him as He did. He focused the reader's attention on Jesus more forcefully by omitting his own name.

"Like the other John at the very beginning of the Gospel, the first witness to Jesus, he is only a voice. The identity of the speaker does not matter: what matters is the witness that he gives."⁴³⁹

"It was customary to sit at most meals. Reclining at table, a hellenistic custom, was reserved for special meals. When first introduced into the Jewish world, it was probably a sign of extreme decadence (Am. 6:4-7), but by New Testament times it was normal at important banquets and feasts, and therefore was virtually required at the Passover celebration, almost as a mark of unhurried celebration and freedom, in self-conscious contrast with the haste with which the first Passover was eaten on the night of the exodus (Ex. 12:11; cf. B. Pesahim 108a; NewDocs 1. § 1; 2. § 26). In short, the posture of Jesus and his men is a small indicator that they were in fact eating the Passover meal . . ."⁴⁴⁰

13:24-25 Evidently Peter was somewhere across the table from Jesus. He was unable to ask Jesus privately to identify the betrayer. John must have reclined on his left elbow immediately to Jesus' right. By leaning back against Jesus' chest John could have whispered his request quietly. Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper is a beautiful painting, but it does not represent the table arrangement as it would have existed in the upper room.

13:26 Jesus identified Judas as the betrayer to John. The morsel or piece of bread (Gr. psomion) was probably a piece of unleavened bread that Jesus had dipped into the bowl of paschal stew. Passover participants normally did this early in the meal. The host would sometimes do this and pass a morsel of bread and meat to an honored guest. Jesus did this to Judas.

Judas must have sat near enough to Jesus for Jesus to do this conveniently. Possibly Judas reclined to Jesus' immediate left. If he did, this would have put him in the place of the honored guest immediately to the host's left.

Perhaps it was the apparently high honor that Jesus bestowed on Judas by extending the morsel to him that counteracted what Jesus had just said to John about the betrayer. Could Jesus really mean that the disciple who was the guest of honor would betray Him? This apparent contradiction may explain John's lack of response to Jesus' words to him about the betrayer.

Jesus' act of friendship to Judas triggered Judas' betrayal of Jesus' friendship.⁴⁴¹ This was Jesus' final gesture of supreme love for Judas (cf. v. 1).

Only Matthew recorded Judas' hypocritical question, "Surely it is not I, Rabbi?" and Jesus' reply, "You have said it yourself" (Matt. 26:25).

13:27 Judas accepted Jesus' food but not His love. Instead of repenting Judas continued to resist. This resistance opened the way for Satan to take control of him in a stronger way than he had done previously (cf. 3:16-19). Evidently Satan himself rather than just one of his demonic assistants gained control of Judas.⁴⁴²

Undoubtedly Satan took control because he wanted to destroy Jesus. We should not conclude that Satan necessarily or directly controls everyone who opposes God's will. Judas' case was particularly significant in view of the situation. The text does not use the term "possession" to describe Satan's relationship to Judas, but certainly his influence on the traitor must have been very strong.

The opportunity for repentance had passed due to persistence in unbelief. Therefore Jesus did not appeal to Judas to change his mind but to get on with his evil work "quickly" (Gr. tacheion). Jesus' hour had come, and it was essential that Judas not thwart God's plan by delaying.

13:28 No one present knew what Jesus meant when He told Judas to do what he had to do quickly. John must have known that Judas was the betrayer, but even he did not know that Jesus was referring here to Judas' arrangements to betray Him.

"There is nothing in the narrative to show that Jesus meant that betrayal was imminent. From all that has been said so far it may well have been far in the future."⁴⁴³

13:29 The fact that Judas was the treasurer of the Twelve shows that the other disciples trusted him implicitly. He was a consummate hypocrite. Jesus' trust of him shows the Savior's grace.

The feast in view (v. 29) must have been the feast of Unleavened Bread that followed Passover immediately since Jesus and the Twelve were then celebrating the Passover. Giving alms to the poor was a common practice in Jerusalem on Passover evening.⁴⁴⁴

13:30 Judas obeyed Jesus' command (v. 27) and left the upper room immediately. He missed most of the meal including the institution of the Lord's Supper. John's reference to it being night would be redundant if all he wanted to do was give a time reference. In view of his light and darkness motif, it seems that he wanted to point out the spiritual significance of Judas' departure both for Judas and for Jesus (cf. Luke 22:53; John 1:4-5; et al.).

"As the Light of the world was about to depart and return to the Father, the darkness had come at last (cf. Luke 22:53). Again the contrast in imagery is clear. For John, Jesus is the Light of the world, and those who believe in Him come to the light and walk in the light. At the opposite extreme is Judas Iscariot, who rejected Jesus, cast in his lot with the powers of darkness, departed into the darkness, and was swallowed up by it."⁴⁴⁵

College: Joh 13:1-38

JOHN 13

II. JESUS' MANIFESTATION OF HIMSELF IN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION (13:1-21:25)

Chapter 13 begins the second half of the book of John, what C.H. Dodd dubbed the " Book of the Passion." No longer do we see Jesus in the public courts of the temple engaged in dialog with the crowd. No longer do we see Jesus performing mighty signs. Now he spends private time with his disciples leading up to his arrest, trials, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances.

A. JESUS' MANIFESTATION OF HIMSELF TO HIS DISCIPLES IN HIS FAREWELL DISCOURSES (13:1-17:26)

A unique feature of the book of John is the inclusion of the so-called " Farewell Discourses," also called the " Upper Room Discourses." These chapters contain a wealth of material not found in the other Gospels. From the second half of chapter 13 through chapter 16 the material consists primarily of Jesus giving personal instructions to his disciples concerning future events. It is a particularly rich source of material concerning the work and nature of the Holy Spirit. Chapter 17 is an instructive prayer, where Jesus intercedes for his disciples and the future church. As Carson has noted, John's pattern in chapters 2-12 is to present a sign/miracle and then explain it through Jesus' following discourses. In this case the pattern is reversed. Now the explanation is given first (chapters 13-17) followed by the greatest sign of all (the death/resurrection of Jesus).

1. At the Last Supper (13:1-38)

John's version of the Last Supper is obviously different yet strikingly similar to the versions found in the Synoptic Gospels. The most glaring difference is that John makes no mention of the institution of the Lord's Supper. We must remember, however, that the " Bread of Life Discourse" of John 6 contains distinct connections to the Lord's Supper. Therefore, apparently, John has deemed that material as a sufficient way of informing his readers of this significant event.

Jesus' Washing of His Disciple' Feet (13:1-17)

¹ It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. ^a

² The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. ³ Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; ⁴ so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. ⁵ After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

⁶ He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, " Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"

⁷ Jesus replied, " You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."

⁸" No," said Peter, " you shall never wash my feet."

Jesus answered, " Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

⁹" Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, " not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!"

¹⁰ Jesus answered, " A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." ¹¹ For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

¹² When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. " Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. ¹³" You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. ¹⁴ Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. ¹⁵ I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. ¹⁶ I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. ¹⁷ Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

^a 1 Or he loved them to the last

13:1. John notes the time of the next event as just before the Passover Feast. According to ancient Jewish reckoning, the Passover Feast day would have run from sundown Thursday until sundown on Friday. This has caused some scholars to take the position that John understands the " Last Supper" to have taken place on Wednesday evening, just before Passover. This cannot be reconciled with the Synoptic accounts, which clearly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal (e.g., Luke 22:15). But this is an easily explained contradiction. John does not say " the day before Passover" but " just before." The episode he relates next, Jesus washing the disciples' feet, is done immediately before the meal really begins. This symbolic act of humility was a preliminary way for Jesus to demonstrate the full extent of his love. The complete demonstration will come on the cross.

John alerts the reader to a coming painful reality: Jesus will leave this world but his believers remain in the world . As stated already the world for John is sinful humanity alienated from God. The term " world" (kovsmo", kosmos ) is a very significant one in the Farewell Discourses, occurring 35 times in chapters 14-17, nearly half of the occurrences for all of John. In these chapters Jesus discusses thoroughly what it will mean for his disciples to be left behind in a world where sin still has a powerful grip on humanity.

Therefore, two of the great themes for the following chapters are introduced here: " leaving" and " love." Jesus' disciples, both his supper companions and the future church, must understand that his " leaving" was necessary and resulted in the presence of the Holy Spirit among believers. They must also understand that " love" is the controlling ethic for Jesus' disciples. Everything that happens in the community of believers is governed by love.

13:2. The NIV introduces unnecessary confusion into the text by saying the evening meal was being served (emphasis added). A literal translation would be " dinner was taking place." The event has begun, but the eating has not necessarily started. The unexpected washing of feet comes first.

John tells us that Judas Iscariot has already made the decision to betray Jesus (see comments on Judas under 6:71). John does not include an account of Judas's meeting with the high priests to agree to the terms of Jesus' betrayal (see Luke 22:1-6). This meeting has already taken place. John is more interested in the spiritual forces at work. Judas did not concoct the idea for betrayal by himself. It was " put into [his] heart" by the devil (NRSV). Yet John does not imply that Satan somehow was able to override Judas's own will in this matter. He has already portrayed Judas as a money-hungry thief (12:6). His love of money is the overriding factor, negating any loyalty he may have felt for Jesus.

13:3. John takes care to remind the reader that Jesus has no insecurity when it comes to his status or his future. He has all things under his power , a remarkable statement of the omnipotence given to Jesus (cf. Matt 28:18; Phil 3:21). We are to remember that Jesus is not a victim in the events that follow, but a willing participant.

13:4-5. Jesus' secure relationship with the Father allows him to assume a very submissive role: that of the foot-washing servant. Because washing feet is not considered a normal feature of hospitality today, it is difficult for moderns to understand exactly how humiliating this act would have been. It was a necessary job, but one normally done by a household slave or servant. Jesus not only does the task, he assumes the full " costume" of a servant, stripped to his undergarment with a towel tied around his waist. One can imagine the drop-jawed disciples silently submitting to Jesus' scrubbing. It goes without comment that one of those having his feet bathed was Judas the betrayer. For the reader this lurking threat continues to hang over the scene.

13:6-9. There is one disciple, however, who finds his voice. Initially Peter sees nothing symbolic about the foot washing. His view is only of Jesus strangely and inappropriately acting the part of a slave, so he blurts out, " you shall never wash my feet." Jesus' response seems cryptic to us on first hearing, " Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." But this pushes Peter (and us) to a deeper understanding of the entire episode. We must admit that while Peter is impulsive and stubborn at times, he is no blockhead. He immediately recognizes what Jesus is offering, and he cannot get enough of it.

13:10-11. Jesus' answer to Peter is that only his feet need washing. Guests normally bathed before they came to dinner so only their feet would need washing once they arrived at the home of the host. Jesus is playing upon this social reality to provide a lesson for his disciples. The " cleansing" he is really concerned about is spiritual cleansing (cf. 15:3). Jesus can make them completely, utterly clean and pure (KJV, " clean every whit" ). In this Jesus is referring to his atoning work on the cross, " the blood . . . [which] purifies us from every sin" (1 John 1:7). Believers will wear " white robes" (i.e., perfectly clean) which have been " washed in the blood of the Lamb" (Rev 7:14, cf. 22:14).

Yet, in the midst of this excellent lesson and promise, the plot continues. And the terrible fact is that Jesus must admit that not every one of the disciples is clean. While Peter actively resists the washing of Jesus at first, Judas passively rejects it without a word. Judas may have feet without a speck of filth upon them, but his heart is still dirty.

13:12-17. As we will see in chapters 13-17, the time for semicryptic comments from Jesus is past. Now he takes special care to ensure that his disciples understand his actions and words. His teaching point in the foot washing is an example of the relationships he expects in the future community of his believers. If he, the greatest of them, willingly serves them, then there is no excuse for any of them to disdain service. It is the same lesson as the Synoptic Gospels teach: " whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all" (Mark 10:43-44). This attitude of service must be based in love, and that will be the next teaching topic (v. 34, cf. v. 1).

But some will object that this message is out of date. How can we expect people to act as humble servants when our world honors the rich and the powerful? Service takes time and effort, and it requires an attitude of humility. In the Roman Empire power and wealth were idolized, pity and humility were signs of weakness. Jesus' demand for a servant's heart is never outdated nor inappropriate. Our reward does not come from the world's adulation or from our control and mastery of other people. Our reward comes from having an obedient heart and in the confidence that we will be blessed by God.

Note: some Christian traditions have seen verse 14 as a continuing command for the church and, therefore, practice foot washing as a part of their worship activities. No one should object to such a foot washing service, and those who have never participated in one have missed a great lesson in humility and service. Yet it is difficult to make a case for this as an expected continuing practice of the church on the same level as baptism or the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The biggest reason for this conclusion is the lack of evidence that the early church practiced foot washing in this way. There is no evidence in the book of Acts (or any other New Testament book for that matter) that the primitive, apostolic church performed foot washing on a regular basis. For this reason it is seen as an instructive and beneficial exercise, but not a required one.

Jesus' Prediction of Judas' Betrayal (13:18-30)

¹⁸" I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.' ^a

¹⁹" I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He. ²⁰ I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me."

²¹ After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, " I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."

²² His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. ²³ One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. ²⁴ Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, " Ask him which one he means."

²⁵ Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, " Lord, who is it?"

²⁶ Jesus answered, " It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. ²⁷ As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.

" What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, ²⁸ but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. ²⁹ Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. ³⁰ As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.

^a 18 Psalm 41:9

The drama of betrayal is now played out in detail. Jesus is perfectly aware of the intended action of Judas and its result. Jesus now begins to force Judas's hand. The rest of the disciples are only partially aware of what is going on, and their bewilderment is apparent.

13:18. Jesus begins this sequence by reminding the disciples that there is an unfortunate exception among them (v. 10). Just as not all of them are " clean," so also not all of them will be blessed as obedient servants (v. 17). Jesus teaches them that this is not an unforeseen development, but a fulfillment of Scripture, and therefore part of God's plan. The Scripture he quotes is Psalm 41:9, a moving revelation of David's heartbreak over the treachery he experienced from close friends who were really enemies.

13:19-20. Jesus is concerned that the disciples understand that his coming betrayal and death are in no way a thwarting of his plans. He anticipates their disappointment and confusion, but gives them a reassurance that will be understood at a later time. It is crucial that they continue to believe in him (literally, " believe that I am," egô eimi). If they maintain this faith, they become the end product of Jesus' mission from God. To those who want to discredit the church of today as being something Jesus never expected, we must answer that to create a community of believers was an intended purpose of Jesus' ministry.

13:21. As mentioned above, this is the time and place for Jesus to quit talking in figures of speech or giving little clues about the future. He has given hints already about the presence of a traitor among the band of disciples (see 6:70-71). Now John, the eyewitness, relates that Jesus is nearly overcome by the emotional distress this knowledge is causing him ( troubled in spirit ) and solemnly testifies, " one of you is going to betray me." The human Jesus does not seek to keep this horror to himself, but shares his troubles with his beloved disciples.

13:22-26. The NIV captures the essence of this scene well by saying the disciples stared at one another. The truth has dawned upon them: the real danger is from within their own crew! In order to appreciate fully what happens next, it is necessary to visualize the likely physical arrangement of this meal.

Jesus was probably in the center of this group of reclining diners. We are told that the disciple whom Jesus loved (= John) was reclining next to him. Literally, the text says he was " reclining on Jesus' chest." This would mean that he was in front of Jesus, on his " chest" side. We also surmise that Judas was on the other side of Jesus, just behind him. This is because Jesus is able to easily speak to Judas and serve him with a piece of bread without any extraordinary effort (13:26-27).

If we understand this arrangement, we are better able to understand the sequence of events at this point. First, Jesus announces that one of the disciples is a traitor. Second, the dumbfounded disciples stare at each other. Third, Peter prompts his friend John to get a private reading on the identity of the traitor. John is able to do this because his head is just inches from Jesus' head. Fourth, Jesus tells John that he will identify the traitor by giving him a piece of bread. Fifth, he gives the bread to Judas, on his other side. If we accept this reconstruction of events we may project some of the other elements of this scene.

Why, then, did the disciples do nothing to stop Judas? The answer seems to be that they do not know what is happening. Only John knows, and he says nothing. One wonders if the author is revealing here a secret burden he has carried for many years. He was the one who received an answer from Jesus to the question, " Who is it?" Yet he did nothing. Was he paralyzed by fear? Was he unwilling to believe Jesus' word that there was a traitor? Did he suffer from previous intimidation by Judas? Or was he simply too apathetic to act? We do not know, but all of us who have failed many times to do the right thing at the right time can easily put ourselves in John's place.

Another element that becomes clearer is the relationship between Jesus and Judas. These two were considered close friends. They are reclining right next to each other at the Passover meal, and Jesus even serves Judas (a sign of intimacy). For the majority of disciples this act is not seen as unusual, so we may assume that Jesus had handed Judas food many times before. What heart-stopping disappointment Jesus must have felt in Judas! Judas allows the influence of Satan and his own love of money to cause him to betray a very close friend.

13:27-30. There is another person besides John and Jesus who knows exactly what is going on, and this is Judas. Surely he could overhear Jesus' comment that the one to whom Jesus gave the dipped bread was the traitor. By accepting the bread, he removes all pretenses, all deception between Jesus and himself. He has the capacity to refuse the bread and, therefore, renounce his money-loving treachery. But he doesn't. By taking the bread he confirms his role as betrayer, and Satan has won a complete victory in his life. The influence of Satan is so triumphant at this point that John describes it as a demonic possession: Satan entered into him. Ironically for Judas the bread of the Last Supper was not " Christ's body broken for him," but his commitment to self-serving allegiance and evil actions.

Judas's departure has no effect upon the disciples, confirming our scenario that only Jesus, John, and Judas hear this private conversation and understand the actions. They hear Jesus say, " What you are about to do, do quickly," but do not associate these words with the earlier pronouncement of a traitor in their band. They assume that Jesus is sending Judas on an errand of some type. John finishes this section with the chilling statement, And it was night. It is much more than the period after sundown. It is the darkest spiritual period in all of human history. Satan has flexed his mighty muscles of spiritual evil and stolen a disciple from the Son of God. It is clear to John that Satan is deceptively orchestrating the events leading to the crucifixion of Jesus. Why else would such a monstrous, unthinkable deed have been done? Humans are capable of terribly evil things, but satanically inspired evil is beyond any rhyme or reason. As Paul notes many years later, " None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). Truly, it was night.

Jesus' Prediction of Peter's Denial; The New Commandment (13:31-38)

³¹ When he was gone, Jesus said, " Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. ³² If God is glorified in him, ^a God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.

³³" My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.

³⁴" A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. ³⁵ By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

³⁶ Simon Peter asked him, " Lord, where are you going?"

Jesus replied, " Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later."

³⁷ Peter asked, " Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you."

³⁸ Then Jesus answered, " Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!

^a 32 Many early manuscripts do not have If God is glorified in him.

13:31-33. The reader cannot miss the density of the concept of " glory" in this passage. We have already discussed the noun form for glory, doxa (see comments under 11:4). In verses 31-32, the verb form, " glorify," is used five times in quick succession. The Greek verb for glorify is doxavzw (doxazô). It means to glorify, to give praise, to exalt, to attribute greatness or magnificence. As we have seen in John, Jesus often uses the terminology of " glory" to refer to his coming death and resurrection. In the act of sacrificial death Jesus brings glory to God. In the act of resurrection and exaltation God gives glory to Jesus. In the first four times that " glorify" is used here we find a chiasmus to express this reciprocal relationship.

A: The Son of Man is glorified B: God is glorified

(by God) (by the Son)

B߰: If God is glorified in him A߰: God will glorify the Son

(the Son) in himself

Jesus follows this chiasmus with a fifth and final explanation of the glorification intention of God: God will glorify him at once. By this he means that his death will be followed by immediate resurrection and exaltation with no waiting for a future, eschatological Day of Resurrection/Judgment. This immediate future is not an option for the disciples. Therefore Jesus says, " Where I am going [to the right hand of the throne of God], you cannot come."

13:34-35. As the previous paragraph is dense with the concept of glory and glorification , these two verses are thick with the concept of love. They are some of the most enduring verses in all of Scripture, giving the cardinal command for the believing community: you must love one another. These are forms of the Greek verb ajgapavw (agapaô). This verb is usually translated as " love," but this English term is a poor substitute for the Greek verb. In this context agapç (the noun from this verb) is " unselfish love." It is " self-giving love." It is " love without expectations of returned affection." It is pure love, the love that acts simply out of the conviction that the right thing must be done for another human being. This altruistic and benevolent type of action is lacking in human society. For this reason Jesus emphasizes the necessity for his disciples to act this way toward one another, so that such a demonstration would cause the unbelieving world to notice. We are not his disciples because we demonstrate agapç love to one another, but if we are his disciples, this is not an option.

This great, controlling ethic of Jesus became a hallmark of the Christian community. It was later taught by both Paul (Rom 13:8; 1 Thess 4:9; cf. Gal 6:10) and Peter (1 Pet 1:22). It continued to be a favorite theme elsewhere in the writings of John (John 15:12,17; 1 John 3:11,23; 4:7,11,12; 2 John 5). The unswerving love of fellow believers is what Francis Schaeffer so aptly called the " Mark of the Christian." As Schaeffer says, it is " the mark that Jesus gives to label a Christian not just in one era or in one locality but at all times and all places until Jesus returns." And this " mark" has continually renewed the church when it has been rediscovered. The Jesus People and youth of the 1960s loved to sing, " and they'll know we are Christians by our love," and they infused life and love into the church. In the nineteenth century the fathers of the Restoration Movement proclaimed:

In Essentials, Unity

In Non-Essentials, Liberty

In All Things, Love

Unfortunately, the Christian community of the late twentieth century has not been characterized by loving acceptance, but by sectarianism, distrust, and sometimes by open hostility. Agapç love is not the same as blanket toleration or approval of heretics and false teachers. But, as Schaeffer reminds us, " we must both distinguish true Christians from all pretenders and be sure that we leave no true Christians outside of our consideration. . . . We must include everyone who stands in the historic-biblical faith whether or not he is a member of our own party or our own group."

13:36-38. In characteristically blunt fashion, Peter ignores the teaching on love to get back to something Jesus said earlier (v. 33). " Where are you going?" he demands to know. He does not like talk of Jesus abandoning them, and expresses his willingness to die for Jesus (cf. 11:16). But Jesus sees into his heart to see a mixture of loyalty and cowardice. He gives Peter a personal prophecy that must have broken his heart: he would soon deny his relationship with Jesus! He, in effect, would betray Jesus. We wonder how Peter interpreted these words. Did he see this as Jesus' answer to his earlier question about the traitor, " Who is it?" (vv. 24-25). Is he the traitor? Peter's lack of rebuttal tells us that Jesus' words struck a chord in Peter's heart. He is fully aware of his own tendency toward unbelief and has no defense to offer.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Joh 13:1-20

CXVIII.
THE PASCHAL MEAL. JESUS WASHES THE DISCIPLES' FEET.
(Thursday evening of the beginning of Friday.)
^dJOHN XIII. 1-20.

   ^d1 Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto his Father, having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them unto the end. [Since the second century a great dispute has been carried on as to the apparent discrepancy between John and the synoptists in their statements concerning the passover. The synoptists, as we have seen in the previous section, clearly represent Jesus as having eaten the passover at the proper time, and as having been arrested on the same night, while John [647] here and elsewhere (Joh 13:29, Joh 18:28, Joh 19:14, Joh 19:31, Joh 18:1-14) seems to represent Jesus as being arrested before the passover. Our space does not permit us to enter upon a discussion of this difficulty. The reader is referred to a thorough rehearsal of the arguments found in Tholuck in loco (or, after the seventh edition, in his introduction to John's Gospel). The simplest solution of the difficulty is to attribute the apparent discrepancy to that loose way of speaking of the feast which we mentioned in the Mat 28:18); 2. That by nature he was divine (Joh 1:1, Joh 1:14), and, 3. That he was about to return to the divine exaltation which for our sakes he had laid aside -- Phi 2:5-11.]  4 riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments; and he took a towel, and girded himself.  5 Then he poureth water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. [John narrates in detail each of these acts: to him they seem as so many successive steps leading down to the depth of humility. The whole formed a striking but wholesome contrast to the self-seeking and ambitious spirit which the disciples had just manifested.]  6 So he cometh to Simon Peter. He saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? [The others were awed into silence by the strange conduct of their Master; but it accorded with the bold impulsiveness of Peter to challenge the act.]  7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt understand hereafter. [It was no mere feet-washing; or Jesus would not have so spoken. It was at once an example of humility and a symbol of the purification which the Lord accomplished for us by reason of his humiliation. The full meaning of the act was afterward revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.]  8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.  9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. [Since Jesus spoke of the act as in some sense a license or token of permission to have "part" with him, Peter desired that his head and hands also might be included, that he might in his entire man have part with Christ.]  10 Jesus saith to him, He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.  11 For he knew him that should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. [The language implies that the disciples had bathed before leaving Bethany, and that only their feet, soiled [649] by the journey to Jerusalem, needed to be rewashed. The saying is spiritually true as well, for one who has been washed thoroughly by baptism needs not to be re-baptized. After that general cleansing the particular sins are removed by confession (1Jo 1:7-9). But there is no efficacy in any ordinance when the heart and will do not accord with the purposes for which it is administered. Hence it was that Judas, though he had done all that the others had done, was still as foul as ever.]  12 So when he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and sat down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?  13 Ye call me, Teacher, and, Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.  14 If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet.  15 For I have given you an example, that ye also should do as I have done to you.  16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, a servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him.  17 If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them. [Since a servant is not greater than his lord, he should not be ashamed to do what his lord does. It is well known that many, by a literal construction of this passage, have esteemed it to be their duty to wash each other's feet in their churches. But it should be noted that in the entire New Testament there is no command for this, nor is there any passage which recognizes any such church ordinance or practice. Jesus did not institute feet-washing; he found it already a familiar custom of the land, and merely used it as a most appropriate way of showing the proper spirit of humble service. Hence he does not say, "Do what I have done," but "Do as I have done," which requires us to do something similar to that which Christ had done, but necessarily the very same thing. The washing of feet as an act of courtesy or hospitality was never a custom among Western people, and to adopt it because of these words of Christ is to entirely miss his meaning. What he did was a natural daily act of hospitality. But what we would do if we followed his words literally would be to [650] introduce a strange, outlandish practice, which would put a guest to great embarrassment and inconvenience.]  18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled: He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me. [Psa 41:9.]  19 From henceforth I tell you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.  20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. [The meaning of the above passage may perhaps be brought out more easily if we paraphrase it as follows: "I do not speak of blessing to you all, for there is one who shall never be blessed. His conduct does not deceive or surprise me, for I know those whom I have chosen whether they be good or bad. His choosing is in accordance with the prophecy contained in the Book of Psalms. Hitherto I have held my peace about him, but henceforth I shall point out his course, that my foreknowledge of his actions may strengthen your faith in my Messiahship, and not leave you in that condition of hopelessness and despair in which the consequences had come upon me unawares. Do not let his treachery shake your confidence in me, for verily I say unto you that in being my messengers ye are indeed the messengers of the Most High."]

[FFG 647-651]

McGarvey: Joh 13:21-38

CXIX.
JUDAS' BETRAYAL AND PETER'S DENIAL FORETOLD.
(Jerusalem. Evening before the crucifixion.)
^aMATT. XXVI. 21-25, 31-35; ^bMARK XIV. 18-21, 27-31; ^cLUKE XXII. 21-23, 31-38;
^dJOHN XIII. 21-38.

   ^b18 And  ^d21 When Jesus had thus said, bas they sat and were eating, dhe was troubled in the spirit, and ^bJesus dtestified, and said, Verily, verily, I say [651] unto you, that one of you shall betray me. beven he that eateth with me.  ^c21 But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. [The foreknowledge of Judas' crime did not relieve the Lord from the sting of it. By the use of the word "betray" Jesus revealed to Judas that he had perfect knowledge of the peculiar crime which he was about to commit. To induce repentance the enormity of the crime is pointed out in two ways: 1. It was the act of one, an act in which no other could be found willing to have a part. 2. It was the act of one whose hand rested on the table, who was admitted to the closest intercourse and fellowship.]  ^d22 The disciples looked one on another [in startled amazement], doubting of whom he spake.  ^a22 And they bbegan to be {awere} exceeding sorrowful [that the Lord should be betrayed was sorrow enough, but that one of the twelve should do the deed was an added grief],  ^c23 And they began to question among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. band abegan bto say unto him one by one, aevery one, Is it I, Lord? [The form of the question in the Greek indicates that it expects "No" for an answer, so that it may be rendered, "Surely it is not I?"]  23 And he answered and said, bunto them, It is one of the twelve, ^aHe that dipped {bdippeth} ahis hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. [According to Oriental custom, knives and forks were not used. One dish served to hold the sop for several people, that they might dip their bread into it. In so large a company, two or three bowls would be used for convenience' sake. The words of Jesus, therefore, limited the circle of accused ones from twelve to four or five, and also further emphasized the tender and close intimacy between the traitor and the Master.]  ^b21 For the Son of man goeth, cas it hath been determined: beven as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born. [Jesus was following with unfaltering step the path of suffering marked out by the prophets. [652] But this fact in no way exculpated the authors of his death. The prophecies referred to are many. As examples, see Psa 22:1, Isa 53:1-12. The woe pronounced upon Judas was no vindictive or vengeful wish; it is the solemn announcement of the divine judgment. The words of Jesus stop the mouths of the apologists for Judas. When the judge thus speaks in condemnation, who shall presume to argue in extenuation?]  ^d23 There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. [John thus speaks of himself. His couch was in front of that of the Lord, so that when he laid his head back it rested upon Jesus' bosom. See Luk 22:53). Alford says, "I feel, with Meyer, that there is something awful in this termination -- 'it was night.'"]  31 When therefore he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him;  32 and God shall glorify him in himself, and straightway shall he glorify him. [The departure of Judas was the first step in the progress of the Lord's Passion, and in this moment of its beginning Jesus exults in the prospect of its end. Having just condemned the false pride and glory of men by washing his disciples' feet, Jesus rejoices that the true glory of God is about to be immediately manifested in himself -- the glory of humility, charity, service, and self-sacrifice, which was realized to the utmost in the person of Jesus.]  33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews [see Joh 13:1). It is found nowhere else in the Gospels. In the light of his near separation Jesus looked upon his apostles as about to be made orphan children. As to this new commandment, love had been commanded before (Lev 19:18), but the Christian love here commanded is different from that which the Jew was bade to feel for the Jew, just as the affection of a loving family differs from the mere broad and kindly spirit of neighborliness. A love which had Christ's heart as the standard would of necessity be new, and would distinguish those who possessed it from all men.]  ^b27 And  ^a31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written [Zec 13:7], I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.  32 But  ^b28 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee. [The scattering would take place after the return of the apostles to Galilee, and there after his resurrection, Jesus would gather them together as their shepherd.]  ^d36 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered, Whither I go, thou canst not follow now; but thou shalt follow afterwards.  37 Peter saith unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee even now? I will lay down my life for thee. [Peter, grieved at the prospect of separation, can see no reason why he should not follow, since he is willing to pass even through the portal of the grave that he may do so. Though perhaps prevented by no moral inability, he was prevented by the plan of life which God had designed for him. It was not in accordance with the divine will that he should die at this time.]  38 Jesus answereth, Wilt thou lay down thy life for me?  ^c31 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat:  32 but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not [The language here suggests a repetition, in some degree, of Satan's conduct in the case of Job. See Job 1-2:10 Jesus, having insight into what was going on in the spirit world, made supplication that Peter [655] might be enabled to endure the trial]; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren. [The language sadly intimates that Satan's test would leave him in need of repentance. As the one who perhaps exercised the strongest influence over the other ten apostles, Peter is exhorted to use his own bitter experience for their benefit and strengthening.]  33 And he said unto him, Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death.  ^a33 But Peter answered and said unto him, ^bAlthough, {^aIf} all shall be offended in thee, byet will not I. ^aI will never be offended. [Thus Peter repudiates the idea that he could not stand the test.]  ^b30 And Jesus saith {asaid} unto him, Verily I say unto thee, ^cI tell thee, Peter, bthat thou to-day, even this night, before the cock crow twice, cthou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. ^dVerily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, cthis day, dtill {cuntil} dthou hast denied me thrice. [Mark speaks of two cock-crowings and shows that the denial of Peter occurred between them (Mar 14:68-72). But Matthew, Luke, and John speak of but one cock-crowing and place the denial before it. The discrepancy is not an important one. Luke and John look upon the night in its entirety and speak of the cock-crowing at three in the morning, the signal of the dawning day. Mark looks at the night in its details, and shows that the denials of Peter began at midnight, the time of the first cock-crowing, and were finished before the last, or about three in the morning. Peter appears to have been thunderstruck at this prediction, which showed the nature, the details, and the nearness of his sin. He lapsed into silence, and we hear no more from him during the discourses which followed. But he did not yield without one final protest, as the sequel shows.]  ^b31 But ^aPeter bspake exceedingly vehemently, asaith unto him, Even ^bIf I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner {^aLikewise} also said all the disciples. [According to Matthew's account these accusations of our Lord and protestations of Peter were taken up again after [656] Jesus left the upper room and was on his way to Gethsemane. The reader may therefore conceive of them as occurring again in the opening lines of Isa 53:12] must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment.  38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. [In this passage our Lord draws a contrast between the favor with which his messengers had been received on their former mission and the trials and persecutions which awaited them in their future course. If they had prepared then to be received with joy, they were to prepare now to be opposed with bitterness; for the utter rejection of the Master would be followed by the violent persecution of the servants. The apostles took the words of Jesus literally, and showed two swords, and the Lord, for their future enlightenment, said, "It is enough," thus intimating that he did not mean a literal arming with carnal weapons, for had he done so, two swords would not have sufficed for twelve men.]

[FFG 651-655]

Lapide: Joh 13:1-23

1-38

CHAPTER 13

Ver. 1.— Before the Feast of the Passover. About the thirteenth day of the first month; the Passover, say the Greeks, having to be celebrated by the Law of the Jews on the fourteenth day. For they make out from these very words of John that Christ, on account of the approach of His Passion, anticipated the Pasch, celebrating it on the thirteenth day, and therefore ate the lamb with leavened and not with unleavened bread . For the use of unleavened bread began with the Passover on the fourteenth day. For this reason they say that Christ consecrated the Eucharist with leavened bread, and they therefore consecrate and celebrate in leavened and not unleavened bread. But this is opposed to the other Evangelists, who assert that Christ celebrated the Pasch and instituted the Eucharist on the first day of unleavened bread—on which day the Jews used to sacrifice the Paschal Lamb—the fourteenth day of the month, for thus the Law prescribes in Exodus xii. As for what John says, that Christ did it on the day before the feast of the Passover, this must be understood to mean His having done it on the fourteenth day, in the evening preceding the feast,—preceding the first day of unleavened bread, which was the fifteenth day, the morning of the Friday on which Christ was crucified. And in favour of this view, it is to be observed that, though the sacrifice of the lamb took place on the fourteenth day, in the evening, still the feast of the first day of unleavened bread properly began on the morning of the fifteenth. It is in this sense that John says Christ celebrated the Pasch on the day before the Feast of the Pasch, because He celebrated it in the evening of the fourteenth day. But the other three Evangelists, because they couple the evening of the fourteenth day with the morning of the fifteenth, as being one and the same feast (for feasts were begun by the Hebrews on the evening of the day before, and lasted until the evening of the succeeding day, as is still the practice in the Vespers of the Ecclesiastical Office), for this reason say that Christ celebrated the Passover and the Eucharist on the first day of unleavened bread, the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, this being the beginning of the festival, and belonging to both the fourteenth and fifteenth days. So that if we take it as being the end of the fourteenth day, it must be considered as being before the first day of unleavened bread. But if we take it in the beginning of the feast to be held on the next day, then in this sense it belonged to, and was called, the fifteenth day or the first day of unleavened bread, as the other three Evangelists call it.

Jesus, knowing that the hour was come for Him (by His Cross and death) to pass from this world to the Father. This is an allusion to the name Passover,—a passing, or rather a leaping over. Jesus, knowing that it was now the Feast of the Passover, when the Hebrews of old, led by Moses, went out of Egypt and passed into the promised land by the immolation of the lamb (for it was by the blood of this lamb that they were delivered from the angel when he smote the Egyptians), the type of His Immolation, which was about to be accomplished on the Cross, and by which He was about to pass from this world into heaven and return to His Father on the day of His Ascension, that so He might cause us also to pass thither, and leap after death from the world into heaven,—knowing this, He prepared Himself for this day by heroic acts of the supremest humility—inasmuch as He washed the feet of His disciples—and of the sublimest love—inasmuch as He instituted the Eucharist. By these acts He prepared for death and martyrdom that He might teach us to do likewise, to multiply and intensify towards the end of our lives our virtuous actions, especially our acts of humility and charity. And this, first, because it becomes us to grow and advance in virtue daily, with the advance of our lives, to pass the latest day and hour of life in the holiest manner, and to be already beginning the heavenly life, thought, and habits to which we aspire. Secondly, because it is right that when we go out of this world we should leave our brethren, our associates, our friends, and all men a great example of virtue, for the things which we do when going away from them, or dying, make a more lasting impression on the minds of our friends. Thirdly, because it is fitting that we should be prepared in this manner for a generous death, in some cases for martyrdom, and, as it were, earn it from God. Thus S. Laurence, two days before his martyrdom, prepared himself for it by washing the feet of the poor and distributing to them the treasures of the Church, and this was for him the occasion—even the meritorious cause—of so glorious a martyrdom. So too SS. Cyriacus, Largus, Smaragdus, and Sisinnius the Deacons, ministering to the ten thousand Christian soldiers condemned by Diocietian to labour in the construction of his baths, carrying on their shoulders the burdens of old men, and distributing the alms supplied to them by S. Marcellus the Pope and Thraso, obtained as their reward the glorious laurels of martyrdom, as appears from the record of their acts in Surius.

Moreover, faithful and pious souls pass from this world in one way—those without faith in another. For, as S. Augustine says ( Tract 55), "It is one thing to pass from the world, another to pass with it; one thing to pass to a Father, another thing to a foe. For the Egyptians too passed over . . . yet did they not pass through the sea to the kingdom, but to destruction in the sea."

Having loved His own (the faithful ones of His household, the Apostles whose feet He soon after washed) who were in the world. Cyril thinks that this is added for the sake of distinguishing them from the angels who are in heaven; but S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius consider it as marking the distinction of the patriarchs and prophets who were not now in the world but in Limbo, as having passed away from this life. The connection is more appropriate with the preceding " for Him to bass from this world." Being about to leave the Apostles, His most dear children, in the world, and in its troubles, perils, and persecutions, so numerous and so great, Jesus, taking pity on them, gave them, before He went, the highest token of His love towards them, and furnished them, in the Eucharist, with the supreme remedy for all the tribulations of the world, that in it He might always be present to them to fortify and strengthen them against all that might be opposed to their salvation

He loved them to the end. To the end of life, unto death, say S. Cyril, S. Augustine, and Rupert; or, as S. Chrysostom ( Hom. 69) explains it, always. Whence Nonnus says, "Having loved His own from the beginning, so also He loved them to the end."

Secondly, to the end of His love—He loved them with a supreme love, the Greek τέλος, end, being put for τελείωσις, perfection, as S. Chrysostom, Leontius, and Theophylact explain. Euthymius too interprets "to the end" as vehemently, for τέλος ; is the end, the last, the sum of a thing, its highest perfection, its issue, completion, and crowning point. Christ had hitherto loved His disciples exceedingly, but now, being about to pass away to the Father, He manifested to them His most perfect love by washing their feet, by instituting the Eucharist, by exhorting them with the most ardent charity, and by rousing them to the love of God, to constancy, and to all virtue.

Of these two meanings the former is the plainer and simpler, and, therefore, that which Christ first intended; the latter, however, is, the more full of meaning, and therefore Christ had it in view at the same time. So says Toletus. For He (Christ) gives it to be understood that His love to His disciples was so great that, though He knew a fearful and instant death to be awaiting Him, yet, as though forgetful of this, He poured forth His whole being in the love and service of His disciples. Wherefore S. Thomas ( 0pusc. 57) says, "Wherefore, that the vastness of this charity might be the more deeply impressed upon the hearts of the faithful in the Last Supper, when, after celebrating the Pasch with His disciples, He was about to pass from this world to the Father, He instituted this sacrament as an everlasting memorial of His Passion, the fulfilment of ancient types, the greatest of the miracles wrought by Him, and the peculiar solace for their grief at His absence."

S. Augustine and Bede understand Christ by the end, symbolically. For Christ is "the end of the Law" (Rom 10:4); He loved His own, therefore, to the end, that is, on account of Himself, or by communicating to them His own glory. The Interlinear says that He loved His own unto the end, that is, by dying for them, that they by His love might pass from the world.

And s upper being over, when Satan had put it into the heart of Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot, to betray Him. After the legal supper and the common supper too, before the Sacred Supper—the institution of the Eucharist—Christ washed the feet of His disciples; for by this washing He wished to show with how great purity and humility we ought to approach the Eucharist. Observe that Christ partook of a triple supper with His disciples, the ceremonial, the ordinary supper, and the Supper of the Eucharist. In families of ample means, the lamb being insufficient to satisfy the hunger of so many persons, there usually followed the ordinary supper, at which they ate other kinds of meat. And so Christ washed the feet of the Apostles after the two former suppers and before the third. And hence it is clear this washing of feet was not merely the ordinary usage of the Jews according to which they were accustomed to wash the feet of their guests, but a sacramental ablution, by which Christ was preparing His disciples for the reception of the Eucharist, converting the ordinary usage into a sacred ceremony. So that they are in error who gather from this passage that Christ washed the feet of His disciples after the Eucharistic Supper and before the lengthy discourse which He then made them, and which is subjoined by John. Of this number is S. Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the "Treatise on the Washing of Feet." "The Lord," he says, "had now distributed to the Apostles the Sacrament of His Body; Judas had now gone out; when, rising from the table, He girt Himself with a towel, and at the knees of Peter the Lord Himself, on bended knee, about to wash the feet of His servant, discharged towards him an office of consummate humility."

When the devil. The betrayal of Christ by Judas being now at hand—the result of a diabolical prompting—and His murder by the Jews, He wished first to leave us in the Eucharist a perpetual memorial of Himself, by means of which He would also recall to our minds His Passion and Death endured for us, and so incite us to a reciprocal love of Him. Again, John mentions the treachery of Judas in order to increase our appreciation of Christ's humility, patience, and loving-kindness. For, knowing that He had been sold for money, and was soon to be betrayed by Judas, He nevertheless was so persistent in the love of His Disciples that He wished to wash their feet, even the feet of Judas. So say S. Cyril, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius, and Rupert. The Evangelist tells us that the devil put this treachery into the heart of Judas; by which he wishes to imply that its atrocity was such that it could only have been the work of the devil.

Ver. 3. — Knowing that the Father gave all things into His hands, and that He came forth from God and went to God. That is, first, though Christ knew Himself to be such, and so great as to have all things in His power, and indeed to be Very God of Very God, and that, as He had come forth from, so he was about to return to, and sit down at the right hand of God, yet He humbled Himself so far as to kneel down and wash the feet of His disciples and of Judas His betrayer. So Cyril, Augustine, Bede, and S. Gregory ( Morals, Book iii., chap. 12). Maldonatus adds that Christ knew that all things were given Him by the Father, that is, that it was now permitted Him by the Father's ordinance to complete all the things that were given Him to do;—that hitherto He had not been permitted to die, because the time appointed by the Father had not yet come, but that now that time had come when it was permitted Him to do all that belonged to the redemption of man.

Again, John here assigns three very fitting and efficacious motives which impelled Christ to wash the feet of His disciples. The first is, that " the Father gave all things into His hands ;" that is, because the Father intrusted to Him the salvation of mankind, and committed their whole care to Him; for this trust incited Him to leave to mankind before His departure these stupendous examples of humility and charity. As for what is meant by the Father's making over all things to Christ, see the remarks on Mat 11:27.

The second motive was that " He came forth from God." It was fitting that Christ the Son should by this washing of feet manifest His supreme love and reverence towards God the Father. For by nothing is God more honoured and gratified than by our humility; so that humility is the highest praise of God.

And the third was that " He went to God." Knowing that His death was near at hand, and wishing the last act of His life to be one of the most sublime virtue, He would now do an act of the greatest charity and humility, and leave it as a legacy to posterity. Such is the view of Toletus.

He rises from supper and lays aside His garments, and taking a towel girded Himself. John enumerates all the actions, conditions, and circumstances of the washing of feet to show us how attentive, exact, and observant of decorum Christ was in this, as in all else that He did, that we may learn to do likewise even in the smallest matters, according to the words of Ecclus. xxxiii. 23, "In all thy works [be thou careful to] excel."

Lays aside His garments—the outer tunic, keeping on the inner lest His body should be exposed; or rather the robe which those about to partake of supper usually put on over their ordinary dress. The Greek has ίμάτια, the outermost garments or garment, such as the toga or pallium. By the figure of enallage the plural number is here put for the singular.

Girt Himself— that He might not soil His garments, that He might be the more unimpeded in the work of washing, that He might wipe their feet when He had washed them, and also that He might assume for this servile office the servile garb which befitted it, and in this way abase Himself completely. "What wonder," says S. Augustine, "if He who, when He was in the form of God, did make Himself void, arose from supper and laid aside His garments?" For humility is the distinctive virtue of Christ and Christians. S. Basil ( Constit., chap. xvi.) says that humility guards the treasure-house of the virtues. Humility, says S. Macarius ( Homil. xv.), is the badge of Christianity, which he who lacks is a vessel of the Evil One; humility is the ballast of the virtues. This is what S. Augustine says in his first Discourse on Psalm xxiii. "As David laid Goliath low, it is Christ who hath slain the devil. And what is the Christ who hath slain the devil? Humility hath slain pride. When therefore, my brethren, I mention Christ, humility is chiefly commanded to us. For by humility He hath made a way for us, inasmuch as by pride we had receded from God. Except by humility we could not have returned to Him, and we had none to set before us as an example to imitate, for all mortals had become puffed up with human pride. And if there existed any man humble in spirit, as were the prophets and patriarchs, the human race disdained to imitate humble persons. Then let not man disdain to imitate a humble man; God hath become humble that so the pride of the human race might at least not disdain to follow the footsteps of God."

Ver. 5.— Then He puts water into a bason and begins to wash the feet of his disciples, and wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. S. Cyprian, Theophylact, and Euthymius note that Christ did all these things by Himself, without the aid or help of any one, to teach us how attentively and carefully we ought to serve others. Euthymius adds that Christ Himself asked the master of the house for the basin, and drew and brought the water. "What wonder," says S. Augustine ( Tract 55), "if He who poured forth His blood on the earth to wash away the uncleanness of sin poured water into a bason to wash the feet of His disciples? What wonder if He who made firm with the flesh He had taken upon Him the footsteps of His Evangelists, wiped with the towel He was girded with the feet that He had washed?"

Symbolically, S. Ambrose (Book i., "On the Holy Spirit") says, "This water was the heavenly dew. This it was that was prophesied, that with that heavenly dew the Lord Jesus should wash the feet of His disciples." And later on, "Come, therefore, 0 Lord Jesus! put off the garments that Thou hast for my sake put upon Thee; be Thou naked, that Thou mayest clothe us with Thy mercy. Gird Thyself for our sakes with linen, that Thou mayest gird us with the immortality of Thy ( muneris immortalitate ) free gift. Pour water in the bason, and wash not our feet only but our head also; and not only those of the body, but I would also put off from the footsoles of the mind all the uncleanness of my frailty, that I too may say, 'I have put off my garment in the night, how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet, how shall I soil them?'" ( Song v.)

Ver. 6.— He comes therefore to Simon Peter : so as to begin here as elsewhere with Peter, the Head and Primate of the Apostles. For if He had gone first to the other Apostles, they would assuredly have protested as much as Peter against so great and unusual an act of condescension on the part of their Lord; but when they saw Peter acquiesce after having been rebuked by Christ, they too acquiesced, and allowed their feet to be washed by Him. So S. Augustine, Bede, Rupert, Maldonatus, and others.

Christ here indicates figuratively that visitation and reformation must be begun with the head and those who bear rule, for that so it will be easy to reform the faithful who are subject to them. However, Origen and Leontius think that Peter was the last in this washing of feet, and with Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius, hold that Christ first of all washed the feet of Judas that He might soften his heart and recall him from his wicked treason, and might give us an example of the love of our enemies, that we may repay their injuries with kindness, and do them the more good the more spiteful we feel them to be towards us.

And Peter says to Him, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet? That is, dost Thou prepare to do so? The action is represented as just beginning, or rather intended, for Christ had not yet begun to wash his feet. Peter said this in stupefied amazement at the humility of Christ, and out of the depth of his reverence for Him, says Cyril; and hence every one of the words is emphatic. Thou who art the King of kings and Lord of lords, my feet, who am a low fisherman, and but a worm of this earth, feet that are muddy and filthy, dost Thou wash them with Thine own blessed hands? "These things," says S. Augustine, "must be thought upon rather than spoken of, lest the tongue fail to express what the mind has more or less worthily comprehended by these words."

Ver. 7.— Jesus answered and said to him, What I do thou knowest not now, but hereafter thou shalt know. Christ means that in this washing of feet, mysteries are hidden which as yet Peter knew not. "Peter," says S. Ambrose (in his work, De iis qui initiantur, ch. 6), "saw not the hidden meaning, and therefore rejected the service, thinking that the humility of the servant would be compromised should he suffer his Lord to do him this office." " Hereafter thou shalt know," that is, first, "when I shall tell you (ver. 14) that I do this to give to thee, to the apostles, and to the rest of the faithful an example of the greatest humility and most sublime charity;" so S. Cyril interprets. Secondly, because by this ablution penance is signified, and this sacrament must precede that of the Eucharist, as thou, 0 Peter, shalt understand after the Holy Spirit has been sent, for "He shall teach you all things." So S. Cyprian, ( Tract. de Cœnâ Dom. ), S. Pacianus (Ep. 1, contra Novat.), S. Gregory (bk. ix. Ep. 39), and SS. Augustine and Bernard imply the same. It was as a type of this that the Jewish priests used, when entering the temple to sacrifice, to wash their hands and feet in the brazen layer that was set for this purpose in front of the Holy of Holies; and this they did for the sake of bodily cleanliness, that by it they might be admonished of spiritual purity.

On this point S. Ambrose is singular in his view; for in his work "On the Sacraments" (bk. iii. ch. 1, and in De iis qui initiantur, ch. 6) he holds that this bodily washing of feet is necessary for all the faithful before baptism, that by it they may be prepared for the Holy Eucharist just as Christ prepared the apostles. Hence he maintains that the washing of feet is a kind of sacrament or sacred rite here sanctioned by Christ, by which we are to be strengthened against the devil's endeavours to trip us up. And for this reason he reckons the washing of feet amongst the rites or ceremonies of baptism, so that it came into use as such at Milan.  S. Bernard, too, in his sermon "On the Lord's Supper," calls the washing of feet a sacrament, and implies that it has power for the remission of venial sins; "for," he says, "that we may not be in doubt about the remission of our daily sins, we have the sacrament of it—the washing of feet." By " sacrament," however, S. Bernard here understands symbol or figure, as he himself explains a little farther on.

Symbolically, Origen and S. Jerome (in his epistle to Damasus on the first vision of Isaiah) think that Christ washed His apostles' feet to prepare them for the preaching of the gospel, according to the words, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring good tidings1" (Isa. 1ii. 7.) Secondly, S. Ambrose thinks that Christ in baptism washes away actual sin by washing the head, but that here, in washing their feet, He washed away the remains of original sin, the movements of concupiscence, for that by this washing He strengthened their feet—that is, their affections—to make generous resistance to their lower appetites.

Thirdly, S. Augustine and S. Bernard ( l.c. ) say that by the feet with which we tread the earth are signified the loves, the stains, and the defects which, while we are amid the things of earth, adhere to our affections, as dust or mud to our feet.

S. Ambrose ( De Initiandis, ch. 6) gives the mystical reason for the washing of feet as follows:—"Peter was clean, but He must wash his foot, for he had by inheritance the sin of the first man when the serpent tripped him up and led him astray; and therefore is his foot washed, that these hereditary sins may he taken away." He alludes here to the word spoken by God to the serpent, "Thou shalt ensnare his heel"

(Gen 3:15). The same Saint says again ( De Sacram, book iii. ch. 1), "Because Adam was tripped up by the devil and the venom was poured out over thy feet, therefore dost thou wash thy feet that in that part where the serpent ensnared thee there may be added the more abundant aid of sanctification, so that he be not able to trip thee up hereafter," κ.τ.λ.

Another more literal reason was that those who were to be baptized used to go barefooted as a sign of humility. This going barefooted is called by S. Augustine ("On the Creed," bk. ii ch. 1) "the humility of the feet." And so they used to wash off the stains contracted by their bare feet. This custom spread from the Church of Milan to other churches (see S. Augustine, Epp. 118, 119). Palladius, too, in his Lauriaca, ch. 73, tells how Serapion the Sindonite converted two comic actors, washed their feet and then baptized them; but afterwards, as a great many persons came to think that this washing of feet was sufficient without baptism, it was forbidden by the Council of Eliberis, ch. 48. The Church of Milan, however, continued the usage. Guisseppe Visconti treats at length of this subject in his De Ritibus Baptism (bk. iii. ch. 17, et seq. ).

Ver. 8.— " Peter says to Him, Thou shalt never wash my feet." Origin accuses Peter of headstrong audacity and disobedience, but S. Augustine (Tract. 56) rightly excuses him, inasmuch as this speech of his showed profound faith, reverence, fear, humility, and love. "I," (the words are St. Cyprian's in his treatise on the washing of the feet), "I am ready to die with Thee, if needs be, for this I ought to do, this fate I embrace. For Thee I will gladly present my neck to the executioner; but my God and my Lord prostrate at my feet, this I suffer not, this I dare not endure."

Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me. First, S. Augustine takes this mystically. Unless I wash away thy venial sins by penance I will not give thee the Eucharist, which I am about to institute, neither shalt thou enter heaven, for nothing that is defiled can enter there. So, too, St. Cyprian in his treatise on the washing of feet. Secondly, according to SS. Chrysostom and Cyril: Unless thou receive the lesson of humility which I give thee in this washing of feet, thou shalt have no part with Me, for only the humble attain to the grace and glory of God.

Thirdly, according to the letter: If thou, 0 Peter, persistest in thy disobedience, thou shalt not communicate with Me in the Eucharistic table,—I will give thee no part of the bread that is about to be consecrated into My body,—I will not have thee for My familiar friend and the companion of My sacred table. Christ threatens Peter with the loss of His intimate friendship and of the Eucharist, not the loss of His grace and glory; for though Peter was loth to obey, yet this arose from his profound humility and reverence, and was, therefore, worthy of pardon. Toletus says: He threatened not to give Peter the Eucharist by which Christ was to abide in him and he in Christ; for it was chiefly for this that He washed their feet, so that they might be clean and fitly prepared to receive Him when He should give Himself to them and be really united to them. Peter did not distinctly understand what Christ said at the time, but only understood that he was to be cut off from Christ and have nothing in common with Him unless he underwent this washing; afterwards, however, he comprehended the mystery. There is a similar expression in 1Ki 12:16, where the people, exasperated by the cruelty of Roboam, say, "What part have we in David? or what inheritance in the son of Jesse?"

S. Basil, in his "Discourse on Sin," says, "For this reason threats of this kind were held out by Christ against Peter, that unless he had rectified his will by promptitude and quickening of obedience, not those wonderful blessings which had come to him from God, not his gifts, not the promises made to him, not even that declaration of such and so great a yearning towards the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, would have served him to expiate his actual disobedience." Hence S. Basil draws from this two remarkable rules of conduct:—"He that opposes himself to the commands of God, even though he do so with a pious and friendly intention, such an one is nevertheless for this cause estranged from the Lord." And the second is:—"Whatever is said by the Lord, that ought we to receive with all the fulness of our heart." (Reg. xii. ch. 2.)

Simon Peter says to Him, Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. Struck by the threat of Christ as by a thunderbolt, Peter obeys, and offers more than Christ had asked. Hence S. Basil in his Shorter Rules, 60th Answer, gives a useful rule:—"Whatever we have before resolved upon beside that which is commanded by the Lord must be rescinded. This is plainly shown in the case of the Apostle Peter, who had first resolved 'Thou shalt never wash my feet,' but when he heard the Lord say positively, "Unless I wash thee, thou shalt have no part with Me,' straightway changed his mind and said, 'Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands.'"

Again, in the 233rd Answer, St. Basil teaches us from this text that obedience is to be preferred to all the other virtues. "Peter," he says, "although the Lord had borne him witness of such and so great meritorious acts, and had called him and pronounced him blessed in so singular a manner, yet, having in one point only seemed to turn aside from obedience, and that too not from negligence or pride, but from reverence and respect to his Lord,—for this and this only is it said to him, 'Unless I wash thy feet, thou shalt have no part with Me.'"

Ver. 10.— Jesus says to him, He that has been washed needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean throughout. Observe that Christ here alludes to those who wash themselves in the baths and go out washed all over, but, walking barefoot on the ground soil their feet and therefore afterwards wash them only. Again, observe that Christ, as His wont is, here rises from the corporal to the spiritual washing thus—He that has been spiritually washed by baptism, as I, 0 apostles, have washed you, or he who has been washed by Contrition and penance, such an one is washed all over in soul, but needs only to wash his feet, that is, purge frequently by contrition, bodily austerities, and the like virtues, the inclinations of the soul which is stained by contact with the things of earth, and contact from their slight impurities, and this is especially needful before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

SS. Augustine, Bede, Rupert, and S. Bernard in his Sermon on the Lord's Supper, interpret more or less to this effect.

So Christ by this washing of feet purged away the sins of Peter and the apostles, especially their venial sins; for by means of this act of self-abasement He pricked their consciences and reminded them of that inward purification that must be made in the soul by contrition by means of which venial sins are expiated.

Lastly, S. Augustine in his 108th Letter to Seleucianus, gathers with some probability from the words "he that has been washed," that Peter and the apostles had been baptized before the Eucharist; both because no one is qualified to receive the Eucharist without having been baptized, and also because Christ baptized them before His death, for after His death He baptized no one, and it is clear that they must all have been baptized either by Christ Himself or by others in His behalf. The expression appears to be rightly applicable to the washing which takes place in baptism.

And ye are clean, but not all. Christ secretly strives to provoke Judas to think better of his plot of wicked treason; still He would not mention him by name, lest He should bring him into bad odour, and the apostles should rise up against him as a traitor, and ill-use him.

Ver. 11 . — For He knew who it was that should betray Him; wherefore He said, Ye are not all clean. From this S. Augustine gathers that Judas was then present, and had been washed by Christ, and that he received the Blessed Sacrament—(Bk ii. contra Petil. Ch. 22.).  S. Cyprian, however, in his treatise on the Washing of Feet, says that Judas was not present at the washing, nor, consequently, at the Eucharist.

Ver. 13.— Ye call me 'Master' and 'Lord,' and ye speak rightly, for so I am. Christ was Master and Lord of all men and of the whole world, not only as God but as man, and not only taught externally by speaking, as masters commonly do, but illuminated minds interiorly, and impelled the will whithersoever He would. See Mat 12:10.

Ver. 15. — I have given you an example, that as I have done so ye may do also— not unto Me, seeing that I am even now going to death, but to others, your neighbours, when necessity or kindness shall require. For, as St. Gregory says in his preface to his books of Dialogues, "Examples stir us up to the love of our heavenly country more than preaching." It was thus that Jesus began first to do and then to teach (Acts i. 1), and taught more by deed than by word. Hence S. Basil teaches that he who bears rule must first do those things which he teaches his subjects to do, and that he ought to excel his subjects in humility as he does in dignity. Christ foresaw that the apostles would soon be wrangling in their pride as to who should be the greater, so He put before them this example of humility to break down and suppress their ambition; and in the event He did if not crush at least break it.

Ver. 16.— Verily, verily I say to you, The slave is not greater than his Lord, nor the messenger than He that sent him. Foreseeing the contention about the chief place which would soon follow, Christ insists on the humility which He is inculcating on His apostles.

Ver. 17. — If Ye know these things, blessed shall ye be if ye do them. If you know these things—and who is ignorant that a master is greater than his slave?—you shall be blessed if, as you know them, you also act up to your knowledge in practice. Blessed in hope, though not yet in actuality;—blessed ye shall be after death if until then ye continue to do these things, and persevere in following Me, as I know that ye all will persevere excepting only Judas. And so, to indicate this exception, He adds,

Ver. 18.— I speak not of you all, because I know that Judas will not do these things which I have said. I know whom I have chosen. S. Augustine (Tract. 59) explains this with reference to the eternal predestination and election to glory by God:—I speak not of all, but of those only whom I have chosen to glory, and Judas I have not chosen. This, however, seems rather harsh, both because the whole blame must be laid upon Judas and not upon Christ, and His election from which He excluded Judas, and in the next verse Christ lays the blame on Judas; and then again because Christ, when He speaks of the eternal election and predestination of God, is not wont to attribute it to Himself but to the Father, for it is a primary function of Providence, which is the attribute of the Father. Christ therefore is here speaking of His temporal election, by which He, as man, chose twelve apostles (see Luke vi.), and Judas himself among the number. This is the view of Toletus and Maldonatus.

I know and have known whom and what manner of men I have elected to be apostles, who will be worthy, and who will not, who will persevere, and therefore be blessed, and who will not. I know those who will do these things which I have said, and who will not, as I know and have known, that Judas being chosen by Me, would not do these things, but would be My betrayer. Wherefore I did not choose him in ignorance, nay rather I foreknew and foresaw that he would betray Me, yet did I choose him to use his malice for the common good, that through him My Passion might be fulfilled, and through it the salvation and redemption of men. Wherefore He adds,—But that the Scripture may be fulfilled; He that eateth bread with Me shall lift up his heel against Me. I knew that Judas would be My betrayer, yet I elected him an Apostle, that through him the Scripture which foretold My Passion and its manner, might be fulfilled, for it foretold that it should be begun by the treachery of My familiar friend, of one of Mine own household, of Judas who has abused My friendship and familiarity in order to betray Me. And I have been willing to allow this, that from his wickedness I may elicit an infinite good—the salvation, namely, of the world—just as I permitted the fall of Lucifer and of Adam, to draw from thence the Incarnation of Christ.

Lift up his heel. He is quoting Ps. xl. 9, where the Septuagint translate "made great upon Me his tripping up," and S. Jerome, "lifted up against me the sole of his foot," that is, tried to deceive, trip up, betray, and bring Me to ruin; nay, he did indeed trip Me up by his deceit, caused Me to fall into the hands of the Jews, and brought Me to My Cross and death. David is speaking literally of Achitophel, who betrayed him to his son Absalom, but mystically of Judas, the betrayer of Christ, of whom Achitophel was a type as David was of Christ.

Ver. 19.— I say to you at once, before it come to pass, that when it come to pass ye may believe that I am. Now, in the Greek, απ άζτι, which may be translated from now or from this time, as in the Syriac Version, or, as here, straightway, forthwith, indicating the treachery of Judas to be near at hand. A few hours hence Judas shall betray Me, and therefore I foretell it to you, that when you see Me betrayed, seized, and killed, you may not be disturbed, but may believe—persevere in My Faith, that I am—the Messiah, the Son of God, freely offering Myself to death for the redemption of mankind. I foretell all these things to you that you may believe that I know them all beforehand and could withdraw Myself from danger, but that I will not, but wish to suffer for the salvation of the world. Then, too, shall you see that I said truly, "Ye are not all clean"—that Judas is unclean and wicked, and therefore to be reprobated and condemned, when you see him for the enormity of his crime strangle himself with a cord. Let, therefore, this prediction of Mine, coupled with the occurrence of the thing predicted, make you firm and strong in My faith when you are on the point of tottering. So Cyril.

Ver. 20.— Verily, verily I say to you, that He that receives him whom I have sent, receives Me; and he that receives Me receives Him that sent Me. It is not clear how these words are connected with those which precede. First Chrysostom ( Hom. 21), and Theophylact after him, refer them to the passion and cross of Christ, as though He were encouraging the apostles to imitate it. In other words: Fear not the persecutions, death, and crosses which you shall suffer in preaching My faith, for in this you will be following Me,—suffering as My ambassadors, sent by Me and therefore by God the Father. Wherefore this suffering shall not bring ignominy on you, but glory. There is, however, no reference here to the sufferings of the apostles, but to their reception by the world.

Then again Cyril (bk. ix. ch. 12) thinks that Christ is showing the heinousness of Judas' treachery by means of an argument from its contrary, thus—Just as he who receives and honours one sent by Me receives and honours Me, so, too, he who rejects him that I send offers a grievous insult not only to Me, but also to God who sent Me. Here, however, we must supply a great many things which Christ did not say.

Gaetano, Jansenius, and Ribera, with more probability, hold that Christ wished, at the close of His discourse on the washing of feet, to make some additional remarks by way of exhorting all the faithful to receive and treat with kindness the apostles sent to them, just as He had previously exhorted the apostles to be kind to the faithful. In this way He consoles the apostles too, whom He had bidden labour in offices of charity for the good of all. (Chrysostom, Homily 71.)

Lastly, Toletus thinks that this is connected with the example given in the washing of feet by Christ, in order that the apostles and the faithful may not excuse themselves from following it on the score that such an act lowers a man. For Christ Himself practised it, and in so doing rendered it honourable and noble. The meaning then is: He who entertains guests who are of the faith, especially apostles, and washes their feet, as it were receives Me who sent them, but he that receives Me receives also the Father who sent Me.

Christ, then, here teaches that offices of humility, such as the washing of feet, must be undertaken even by apostles and prelates, and not refused by them on the score of the dignity of their station, for by these works they shall become honourable as true imitators of Christ and His genuinely accredited agents. It was for this that St. Francis Xavier when, on his voyage to India, he used to make the beds of the sick people, cook their food, and give them their medicine, hearing the complaint made that such degrading occupations were not becoming to an Apostolic Legate as he was, answered that they were becoming to a disciple and -apostle of Christ, since Christ Himself underwent, and, as it were, ennobled them. For in the school of Christ humility alone ennobles and exalts, because it makes us like Christ our God and Lord. So says Tursellinus in his life of this Saint.

S. Charles Borromeo would, on an occasion of public supplication, go with his feet bare, a halter tied round his neck, carrying a cross. He used to discharge servile functions towards the poor, minister to those who were stricken with the plague, and fulfil every menial office; yet did he not by so doing derogate from his dignity as an Archbishop and a Cardinal, but rather enhanced it, and earned the name of "the Holy Cardinal." For as a carbuncle set in a gold ring increases its beauty, so does humility shed a lustre upon the insignia of high station.

Ver. 21.— When He had said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit, and testified (openly and plainly), saying, Verily, I say unto you, that one of you will betray Me. In the Syriac, "These things said Jeschua, and groaned in spirit, and testified and said, Amin, amin, I say to you," κ.τ.λ. In the Arabic Version "was moved in spirit." This emotion, then, was an immense grief and indignation at the crime of Judas. Christ was pained in the innermost feelings of His soul, and groaned in spirit for the enormity of this crime as well as for the perdition of Judas. And this sorrow he did not suffer involuntarily, but admitted it of His free will, and took it upon Him at this point of His own accord, as He did at the death of Lazarus. See commentary on Joh 11:33.

The question arises here, Did this prediction of Christ take place before or after the institution of the Eucharist? John omits all mention of that event, it having been narrated fully by the other Evangelists. Matthew and Mark put the prediction before the institution of the Eucharist in order of time, but Luke puts it after.

There are three probable opinions on this point. The first is that of Jansenius and Francis Lucas, who think that Christ predicted the treason of Judas after the Eucharist, as Luke has it, and that Matthew and Mark, in making it come before, anticipate intentionally. The reason for this view is that if Christ had predicted the treason of Judas before the institution of the Eucharist, He would have disturbed the minds of the apostles, moved them to anger, and rendered their dispositions for its reception less collected than would have been fitting. But this is not conclusive. For Christ before the Eucharist foretold His passion and death, and this disturbed the apostles far more: and soon after the Eucharist—as these interpreters themselves admit—He foretold the treason of Judas, and this disturbed them then, so that they did not duly dispose themselves for that recollection which is proper after Communion. Then again this prediction would, before the Eucharist, have had the force of deterring Judas from his crime, as well as producing compunction in the hearts of the apostles and making them all careful to examine each one his own conscience, lest Christ should there find anything to bring to light and complain of, as He did the crime of Judas.

The second opinion is that of Baronius (Anno Dni. 34, ch. 58). He thinks that Christ made this prediction before the institution of the Eucharist, as Matthew and Mark have it. Baronius, then, is of opinion that the events took place in the order given by John, namely, that after the washing of the feet, Jesus spoke of His betrayal, that it was then that He gave John the sign of the morsel dipped in the dish, but that, as for Judas having gone out immediately after he had taken the morsel, we are not to take the phrase as meaning without any delay in point of time, but that, driven on by a kind of madness, he did not wait for the lengthy discourse which our Lord made after the Supper. For S. Luke clearly bears witness that Judas stayed with the others until the end of the Communion; and after this, according to the Jewish ceremonial, it would seem that nothing was left on the table in which the morsel of bread could have been dipped, so, too, it seems impossible to say that this morsel of bread was the Eucharist. But then Judas, after taking the morsel, did go out immediately, nay, that very moment according to the Syriac. He did not, then, wait for the lengthy Communion of the apostles, if that took place after the incident of the morsel. Hence it is with greater likelihood that other upholders of this view maintain that the morsel given to Judas by Christ was itself the Eucharist; and he, driven, as it were, to madness by the devil when he had received it, unworthily, straightway went forth to carry out the crime he was meditating. Moreover, during and after the institution of the Eucharist Christ reclined at the table, and there, as Luke has it, foretold the treason of Judas. It is, therefore, altogether probable that the table had not yet been removed, but that on it there remained bread and fragments of food out of which Christ could take the bread which He dipped and gave to Judas.

The third opinion, therefore, holding a middle place between the two former, seems to be the more correct—namely, that Christ both foretold His betrayal by Judas before the Eucharist, and repeated the prediction after it; and this both because He felt the atrocity of the crime, and was, as John here says, disturbed in spirit by it, again, that He might place his own wickedness before Judas, show him that He knew of it, and deter him from carrying it out, and also to prepare and fortify the minds of the Apostles, that when they should soon after see the actual betrayal and the capture of Jesus they might not be shocked, but might persevere with constancy in His faith. In this way we best reconcile Matthew and Mark with Luke. This is the expressed view of S. Augustine ( De Consensu Evang., bk. iii. ch. 1), of Euthymius, and of Toletus, who say that the order of events was as follows. The Supper of the Paschal Lamb having been finished, and the ordinary Supper begun, Christ, while they were supping, arose and washed the feet of His disciples; then, reclining once more, He said all these things which John narrates; being troubled in spirit He speaks of His betrayer, and they all ask, one by one, "Is it I?" Judas receiving the answer, "Thou hast said."

Next He institutes the Eucharist, and this being done, and the Mystery having been celebrated, He again speaks of His betrayer, as Luke relates, ch. xxii. "Nevertheless," He says, "behold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me at table," &c. Then Peter asks John, "Who is it of whom He speaks?" and John asking Jesus, receives the answer, "He to whom I shall offer the bread when I have dipped it." And after this morsel Satan entered into Judas, and he went away; and when he went away, and the Supper was quite finished, Christ made to His disciples the wonderful discourse shortly after recorded by John.

Ver. 22.— Therefore the disciples began to look at one another, doubting of whom He was speaking, and asking, too, one by one, "Lord, is it I?" For, as Chrysostom says, "Because He did not speak of His betrayer by name, He brought fear upon all, and, though conscious to themselves of nothing evil, they yet believed Christ more than their own thoughts." And, as Origen says, "They, as being men, remembered that the feelings even of enthusiasts are liable to change."

Ver. 23. — There was then reclining on the bosom of Jesus one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved, namely, John himself. The Apostles, desiring to know by name who was to be the traitor, Peter, more eager and fervent than the rest, hints to John, who is reclining on the bosom of Jesus, to inquire of Jesus, as John here relates, and this is the force of the "then." John being dearer to Jesus and closer to Him, inasmuch as he was reclining on His bosom, therefore, for this reason, Peter hints to him to inquire of Jesus his beloved the name of the traitor. Moreover, John is said to have reclined on the bosom of Jesus because the ancients used not to sit at table, but reclined by twos or threes on the several couches placed before the tables, so that, leaning on the lower part of the right arm, they lay rather than sat at table; and so it came to pass that the second person coming next to the first on his left hand would seem as it were to lie upon his bosom.

Whom Jesus loved—not only with the love of human friendship, but also with the love of charity, for the sake of virginity and purity, his modesty and meekness, and the sweet and holy disposition by which he excelled all the others. So say Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, and St. Jerome in his letter to Heliodorus. Still it does not follow from this that John was absolutely holier than all the other apostles; Peter may have been more ardent in charity than he, and therefore holier than John. For sanctity consists chiefly in the love of God, which is its measure. Moreover, that John was reclining on the bosom of Jesus was not only a mark of His love for him at the time, but also a sign of what was to be, "That he might take from thence," says Bede, "that voice unheard through all ages which he was afterwards to send forth to the world."

Ver. 24.— Simon Peter, therefore, gave him a sign, and said to him, Who is it of whom He speaks?—Hence it is plain that Peter not only gave a sign to John by winking and nodding, as S. Augustine would have it, but also spoke to him quietly, as John here relates. Such is the opinion of Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril. Peter asks this not as Prince of the Apostles (though Cyril takes this view), nor as though fearing, for himself lest he should be the traitor, as Chrysostom thinks, but out of his zeal, that he might avert so enormous a crime and prevent the betrayal of Christ, just as in the garden he wished to prevent His capture by cutting of the right ear of Malchus.

Verses 25, 26.— So when he had reclined upon the breast of Jesus, κ.τ.λ. John seems to have moved towards Peter, who was making signs to him, and so to have moved away a little from the bosom of Jesus in order to hear what Peter had to say; and having heard, he seems to have reoccupied his former position to ask of Jesus what Peter had suggested to him.

The bread I have dipped.—Observe that Judas was present at the celebration of the Passover, and also of the Eucharist; and received the latter together with the other Apostles, as SS. Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others show. Indeed some have thought that this bread which He had dipped was the Eucharist, but erroneously; for Christ did not consecrate bread which He had dipped, but dry bread, and likewise pure wine and unmixed (with bread). Christ, after the Holy Communion, took from the table a morsel of the bread that remained, dipped it into some little dainty sauce that remained on the table, for it is not fitting that at a banquet dry bread should be given to a guest by the host, and gave it to Judas, that by this sign He might indicate him to John as the traitor. The other apostles did not hear the words of Christ to John about this way of pointing out the traitor, He having spoken quietly to John in his ear.

Moreover, Christ pointed him out by this sign with peculiar fitness, bread which we eat at table being a sign of peace and friendship, so that Christ showed by it, not only who the traitor was, but also the nature and mode of his treachery, for Judas was to betray Him by a similar sign of friendship, a kiss.

Mystically this dipping of the bread denoted the falseness and fraud that was in the soul of Judas, says St. Augustine. Again St. Cyril and Augustine say that Judas was pointed out by Christ by the morsel of bread that the words of Ps. xli. might be fulfilled—"He that eateth bread with me hath lifted his heel against me." Indeed Chrysostom says that by this very act Christ here upbraided Judas with this, as if He had said, How is it, Judas, that thou, a companion of My table, art not ashamed to betray Me? Judas, then, having received the morsel from Christ, feeling by his own evil conscience, and by this sign, that he was a marked man, persisted shamelessly and obstinately in his intention of betraying Christ. For seeing himself found, out and disgraced, as it were beside himself and infuriated, he went forth at the devil's prompting to finish his crime, going to the chief priests to ask them for guards who, with him for their leader and guide, should seize Jesus.

Though Matthew puts these words and Christ's answer before the Eucharist, so that S. Augustine ( De Consensu, Evang. bk. iii. ch. 1) thinks that they were spoken before it, yet from the words of Luke and John it is plain that they were spoken after the Eucharist. For it is altogether likely that Judas, when he heard Christ's answer, Thou hast said, straightway went out embarrassed and indignant. Immediately, then, after receiving the morsel he asked, Master, is it I? received the answer, Thou hast said, and then went out at once, covered with shame and indignation.

Ver. 27. — And after the morsel Satan entered into him, urging and impelling him to avenge this his disgrace,—to betray to the Jews Christ who had betrayed his villainy. Satan, who had before entered into Judas for the plotting of the betrayal, as was said in verse 2, here again entered into him for its accomplishment; both because Judas, being already called by Christ and the apostles a traitor, dared remain among them no longer lest he should be ill-treated by them, and also because the hour proper for the betrayal, and appointed first by Judas, was near at hand—that hour, namely, when he knew that Christ would, after His wont, go out to pray on Mount Olivet, where He could easily be seized. Wherefore there was no need for John to point out Judas to Peter when Christ pointed out the traitor to him, for Judas soon betrayed himself both by his question and by his departure.

So Satan entered into Judas to take complete possession of him, and that with certainty and with a strong hold, so that he brought him soon to the halter. Not that the morsel given him by Christ put the devil into him, for this was a sign of Christ's love by which He wanted to win the heart of Judas to love Him in return, but that Judas, ungrateful for this love of Christ, took it in bad part, thinking that Christ was giving him the morsel out of hatred and a desire to injure him and make his crime known to the apostles.

Wherefore, bidding farewell to the apostolate of Christ, he went away to the household and the bondage of Satan and of the Jews as a deserter and apostate. So S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and Cyril, who observes that a kindness hurts those who are ungrateful not of itself, but through their fault and ingratitude.  S. Ambrose ( De Cain et Abel, bk. ii. ch. 4) says—"When Satan put himself into the heart of Judas, Christ went away from him, and in that moment when he received the former he lost the latter."

The devil entered into Judas for three reasons. First, for his ingratitude, says S. Augustine; for Christ having discharged all the offices of love towards him, and he not being moved even by these, was left to be fully possessed by the devil. Then again, because the devil knew from the words of the Lord and from outward signs that he was stubborn in his evil will, and given over by the Lord, says Chrysostom (Homily 71). Thirdly, because Judas himself understood that he was now found out, and, as it were, separated from the disciples and from their Master; so he became hardened in evil, and, as if in desperation, gave himself over entirely to the devil; and so it was that he went out, unable to bear the looks of his Lord and of the disciples, or, says Euthymius, following S. Chrysostom, fearing lest he should be torn to pieces by them. So Ribera.

Notice here in the case of Judas how a man who deserts Christ is palpably deserted by Christ, and when deserted is attacked by Satan—possessed by him, and, when possessed, hurried into every crime, and then into the abyss. Just as Judas from an apostle became a devil, so Lucifer from the fairest of angels became the darkest of evil spirits,—as the sourest vinegar is made from the sweetest wine, and the heretic—Luther, for instance—nay, the heresiarch, is made from the monk.

And Jesus said to him : What thou doest, do more quickly—more quickly, that is quickly, as the Syriac translates it; the comparative is put for the positive. Christ is not precipitating the treason of Judas, but He permits it. He says as it were: Think not that thy doings are hidden from Me; I know that thou art meditating treason. He did not tell him to commit the crime, says S. Augustine, but He foretold it, not so much in wrathful desire for the destruction of the villain, as in haste for the safety of the faithful. He permitted it, saying, as it were: Do what thou hast begun, finish what thou didst intend; in a thousand ways could I hinder thee, but I will not; rather do I leave thee to thy free will. Do what thou hast planned in thy heart.

Thirdly, S. Chrysostom says they are words of reproach. I know that thou art working great evil against Me, from whom thou hast received so many gifts; are these the injuries thou repayest Me for so many kindnesses? But do what thou hast to do. For even though I have made known thy crime, yet have I not done so as fearing it, nor would I wish to hinder it; for if I wished I could do so; but in order to cast before thine eyes thy malice and thy shamelessness, and to reprove thee.

Fourthly, they are the words of a lofty mind that despises all the machinations of Judas. St. Leo (Serm. 1, On the Passion) says, "It is the voice of one who commands not but permits, of one not fearing but prepared, who, holding all time in His power, showed that He allowed no delay to the traitor, and that He so followed out the will of the Father for the redemption of the world, as neither to prompt nor fear the crime that was being matured."

Fifthly, they are the words of one excluding Judas, as incorrigible, from His family and the fellowship of the apostles. Since thou wilt sever thyself from us, I exclude thee from My table, from My house, My apostolate, and My companionship; get thee gone, then, to thine own Jews and to Satan, to whom thou hast sold thyself. So S. Ambrose ( De Cain et Abel, bk. ii. ch. 4). Cyril (bk. ix. ch. 17), following Origen, interprets in a novel fashion, taking these things as said by Christ not to Judas but to Satan, who was entering into Judas. He says that, "Just as if a mighty man against whom some one advances with hostile intent, trusting in his own might, doubts not but that his adversary shall fall, and, with loud and threatening noise, speaks: What thou doest do quickly, that thou mayest know the strength of my right hand. Such words we would not call so much the words of one in haste to die, as of one who knew before that his adversary must fall. So our Lord bids the devil run quickly to the things he has made ready, that being conquered and bound he may the sooner relieve the world of his tyranny." But from what we have said it is clear that this was said to Judas and not to

Lapide: Joh 13:25-38

Verses 25, 26.— So when he had reclined upon the breast of Jesus, κ.τ.λ. John seems to have moved towards Peter, who was making signs to him, and so to have moved away a little from the bosom of Jesus in order to hear what Peter had to say; and having heard, he seems to have reoccupied his former position to ask of Jesus what Peter had suggested to him.

The bread I have dipped.—Observe that Judas was present at the celebration of the Passover, and also of the Eucharist; and received the latter together with the other Apostles, as SS. Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others show. Indeed some have thought that this bread which He had dipped was the Eucharist, but erroneously; for Christ did not consecrate bread which He had dipped, but dry bread, and likewise pure wine and unmixed (with bread). Christ, after the Holy Communion, took from the table a morsel of the bread that remained, dipped it into some little dainty sauce that remained on the table, for it is not fitting that at a banquet dry bread should be given to a guest by the host, and gave it to Judas, that by this sign He might indicate him to John as the traitor. The other apostles did not hear the words of Christ to John about this way of pointing out the traitor, He having spoken quietly to John in his ear.

Moreover, Christ pointed him out by this sign with peculiar fitness, bread which we eat at table being a sign of peace and friendship, so that Christ showed by it, not only who the traitor was, but also the nature and mode of his treachery, for Judas was to betray Him by a similar sign of friendship, a kiss.

Mystically this dipping of the bread denoted the falseness and fraud that was in the soul of Judas, says St. Augustine. Again St. Cyril and Augustine say that Judas was pointed out by Christ by the morsel of bread that the words of Ps. xli. might be fulfilled—"He that eateth bread with me hath lifted his heel against me." Indeed Chrysostom says that by this very act Christ here upbraided Judas with this, as if He had said, How is it, Judas, that thou, a companion of My table, art not ashamed to betray Me? Judas, then, having received the morsel from Christ, feeling by his own evil conscience, and by this sign, that he was a marked man, persisted shamelessly and obstinately in his intention of betraying Christ. For seeing himself found, out and disgraced, as it were beside himself and infuriated, he went forth at the devil's prompting to finish his crime, going to the chief priests to ask them for guards who, with him for their leader and guide, should seize Jesus.

Though Matthew puts these words and Christ's answer before the Eucharist, so that S. Augustine ( De Consensu, Evang. bk. iii. ch. 1) thinks that they were spoken before it, yet from the words of Luke and John it is plain that they were spoken after the Eucharist. For it is altogether likely that Judas, when he heard Christ's answer, Thou hast said, straightway went out embarrassed and indignant. Immediately, then, after receiving the morsel he asked, Master, is it I? received the answer, Thou hast said, and then went out at once, covered with shame and indignation.

Ver. 27. — And after the morsel Satan entered into him, urging and impelling him to avenge this his disgrace,—to betray to the Jews Christ who had betrayed his villainy. Satan, who had before entered into Judas for the plotting of the betrayal, as was said in verse 2, here again entered into him for its accomplishment; both because Judas, being already called by Christ and the apostles a traitor, dared remain among them no longer lest he should be ill-treated by them, and also because the hour proper for the betrayal, and appointed first by Judas, was near at hand—that hour, namely, when he knew that Christ would, after His wont, go out to pray on Mount Olivet, where He could easily be seized. Wherefore there was no need for John to point out Judas to Peter when Christ pointed out the traitor to him, for Judas soon betrayed himself both by his question and by his departure.

So Satan entered into Judas to take complete possession of him, and that with certainty and with a strong hold, so that he brought him soon to the halter. Not that the morsel given him by Christ put the devil into him, for this was a sign of Christ's love by which He wanted to win the heart of Judas to love Him in return, but that Judas, ungrateful for this love of Christ, took it in bad part, thinking that Christ was giving him the morsel out of hatred and a desire to injure him and make his crime known to the apostles.

Wherefore, bidding farewell to the apostolate of Christ, he went away to the household and the bondage of Satan and of the Jews as a deserter and apostate. So S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and Cyril, who observes that a kindness hurts those who are ungrateful not of itself, but through their fault and ingratitude.  S. Ambrose ( De Cain et Abel, bk. ii. ch. 4) says—"When Satan put himself into the heart of Judas, Christ went away from him, and in that moment when he received the former he lost the latter."

The devil entered into Judas for three reasons. First, for his ingratitude, says S. Augustine; for Christ having discharged all the offices of love towards him, and he not being moved even by these, was left to be fully possessed by the devil. Then again, because the devil knew from the words of the Lord and from outward signs that he was stubborn in his evil will, and given over by the Lord, says Chrysostom (Homily 71). Thirdly, because Judas himself understood that he was now found out, and, as it were, separated from the disciples and from their Master; so he became hardened in evil, and, as if in desperation, gave himself over entirely to the devil; and so it was that he went out, unable to bear the looks of his Lord and of the disciples, or, says Euthymius, following S. Chrysostom, fearing lest he should be torn to pieces by them. So Ribera.

Notice here in the case of Judas how a man who deserts Christ is palpably deserted by Christ, and when deserted is attacked by Satan—possessed by him, and, when possessed, hurried into every crime, and then into the abyss. Just as Judas from an apostle became a devil, so Lucifer from the fairest of angels became the darkest of evil spirits,—as the sourest vinegar is made from the sweetest wine, and the heretic—Luther, for instance—nay, the heresiarch, is made from the monk.

And Jesus said to him : What thou doest, do more quickly—more quickly, that is quickly, as the Syriac translates it; the comparative is put for the positive. Christ is not precipitating the treason of Judas, but He permits it. He says as it were: Think not that thy doings are hidden from Me; I know that thou art meditating treason. He did not tell him to commit the crime, says S. Augustine, but He foretold it, not so much in wrathful desire for the destruction of the villain, as in haste for the safety of the faithful. He permitted it, saying, as it were: Do what thou hast begun, finish what thou didst intend; in a thousand ways could I hinder thee, but I will not; rather do I leave thee to thy free will. Do what thou hast planned in thy heart.

Thirdly, S. Chrysostom says they are words of reproach. I know that thou art working great evil against Me, from whom thou hast received so many gifts; are these the injuries thou repayest Me for so many kindnesses? But do what thou hast to do. For even though I have made known thy crime, yet have I not done so as fearing it, nor would I wish to hinder it; for if I wished I could do so; but in order to cast before thine eyes thy malice and thy shamelessness, and to reprove thee.

Fourthly, they are the words of a lofty mind that despises all the machinations of Judas. St. Leo (Serm. 1, On the Passion) says, "It is the voice of one who commands not but permits, of one not fearing but prepared, who, holding all time in His power, showed that He allowed no delay to the traitor, and that He so followed out the will of the Father for the redemption of the world, as neither to prompt nor fear the crime that was being matured."

Fifthly, they are the words of one excluding Judas, as incorrigible, from His family and the fellowship of the apostles. Since thou wilt sever thyself from us, I exclude thee from My table, from My house, My apostolate, and My companionship; get thee gone, then, to thine own Jews and to Satan, to whom thou hast sold thyself. So S. Ambrose ( De Cain et Abel, bk. ii. ch. 4). Cyril (bk. ix. ch. 17), following Origen, interprets in a novel fashion, taking these things as said by Christ not to Judas but to Satan, who was entering into Judas. He says that, "Just as if a mighty man against whom some one advances with hostile intent, trusting in his own might, doubts not but that his adversary shall fall, and, with loud and threatening noise, speaks: What thou doest do quickly, that thou mayest know the strength of my right hand. Such words we would not call so much the words of one in haste to die, as of one who knew before that his adversary must fall. So our Lord bids the devil run quickly to the things he has made ready, that being conquered and bound he may the sooner relieve the world of his tyranny." But from what we have said it is clear that this was said to Judas and not to Satan, as the Fathers and interpreters generally hold.

Ver. 28.— But of this, none of those at table knew why He said it, κ.τ.λ. For though they knew from the words of Christ that Judas was to be His betrayer, yet they did not know that he would betray Him that very night; and therefore they did not understand that Christ, when He said, What thou doest, do quickly, was speaking of His betrayal, but interpreted it with reference to the purchase of things needful for the celebration of the Passover, Judas being the steward of Christ and the apostles.

Ver. 30.— When, therefore, he had received the morsel, he straightway went out. Both because he then became possessed by the devil, and also because Christ by the foregoing words had expelled him from His household. The word " therefore " refers to both these reasons.  S. Augustine remarks that, the unclean one going forth, all they that were clean remained with Him that cleanseth them, like the wheat when the tares have been separated from it.  S. Cyril observes that the devil impelled Judas to go forth immediately to betray Christ, lest, by the virtue of the Eucharist which, though unworthily received, was pricking his conscience, he might repent and think better of his crime. Origen adds further, that the teaching of Christ was so efficacious as to move His betrayer afterwards to say: I have sinned in betraying the innocent blood, nay, even to such sorrow, that unable to tolerate life he hanged himself, "showing" he says, "how great was the power of the teaching of Jesus even in a sinner, a thief, and a traitor, seeing that he even could not altogether set at nought the things he had learnt from Jesus." Hence we may gather that it is good to bring about delays in the way of those who are suffering a strong temptation from the devil to commit some sin forthwith; for through this very delay, the matter being more maturely considered, the vileness, the evil results, and penalties of the sin come to be seen, and deter the man from its commission; and at last the heat of the temptation abates and slackens by reason of the mere delay.

On the other hand, when we are following after good and virtuous intentions, as, for instance, a resolution to enter the Priesthood or the Religious State, there is need of haste, lest our relatives, our companions, or the devil, by interposing delays, succeed in frittering away the whole scheme. Hear what S. Chrysostom says (Hom. 57), "While this love is burning in thee, betake thee straightway to the angels themselves and inflame it yet more exceedingly. Say not, I will first speak to my relations, and set my affairs in order; for such delay is the beginning of torpor. The disciple would bury his father, and Christ suffered him not. Why so? Because the devil is eager and watchful to creep into the soul, and if he can seize but a brief delay brings thee to lukewarmness."

S. Anselm and S. Bernard speak in the same sense.

And it was night. John adds this, first, for the sake of historical completeness, to mark the time when Christ was betrayed and seized by the Jews; secondly,—to indicate the haste of the devil, who drove on Judas late at night to go and look for the guards who were perhaps asleep; and, thirdly, says S. Chrysostom ( Hom. 71), "that we may appreciate the rashness of Judas whom the unreasonableness of the hour did not restrain."

Symbolically, the Gloss says that the night-time is in keeping with the mystery, for he that went out was a son of darkness and did the works of darkness. The night indicates the darkness of mind in which Judas was, says S. Ambrose ( De Cain, bk. ii. ch. 4), also the impenitence and condemnation to the darkness of hell, to which Judas was on his way. S. Gregory ("Morals," ii. 2), "By the nature of the time the end of the action is expressed, and Judas, who was never to come back to pardon, is recorded to have gone forth by night. . . . For this cause it is said to the wicked rich man: This night shall thy soul be required of thee. His soul which is being carried away into darkness, is mentioned as being required of him not by day but by night."

Ver. 31.— When, therefore, he had gone forth, Jesus said, Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him— " is glorified," equivalent to " is soon to be glorified," the perfect put for the immediate future; Judas is now gone forth to betray Me, therefore is my cross and death nigh at hand, and so far is it from bringing ignominy on Me that, on the contrary, by it I am to be supremely glorified. For in it shall I be recognised as not only man and the Son of man, but also the Son of God and God; for the Divinity that lieth veiled in My humanity shall be recognised by the darkening of the sun, the cleaving asunder of rocks, the opening of sepulchres, the rising up of the dead, and the quaking of all the earth,—all these things shall show forth that God suffereth and dieth upon the cross. And again by its effects, for by the cross will I subjugate to Myself the whole world, all the devils, and sin, death and hell, as the God and Lord of all things. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others. And here, note that by these signs God and the Godhead of Christ not only glorified the humanity of Christ but Itself also; for in them was made manifest the infinite goodness, power, wisdom, majesty, and glory of Christ's Godhead.

Ver. 32.— If God is glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall glorify Him straightway. If, that is because—because Christ, made obedient unto the death of the cross, hath by this His obedience, reverence, and sacrifice, glorified God the Father, therefore shall God the Father in turn glorify the Son in Himself, by demonstrating and making manifest the Divinity that is hidden in Him. And this straightway—quickly, for on the third day He shall raise Him up revived, and glorious in His death; on the fortieth day He shall cause Him to ascend in triumph into Heaven; and on the fiftieth to send down His Holy Spirit upon the apostles. By all these things He made known to the world that Jesus is not only man but God, and the Son of God. So Cyril and Chrysostom. Origen, in his 6th Homily, says that the glorification of Christ was twofold,—the former in His death, by which He was glorified in the lowliness of His mortality; and the latter in His resurrection, by which He was glorified in the sublimity of His immortality.

Secondly, S. Hilary ( De Trinitate, bk . v.), and Toletus following him, think that God is said to be glorified in Christ, because He showed His own Divinity in His death and resurrection; proving Himself God and the Son of God by raising Himself from death, ascending into heaven by His own power, and thence sending down the Holy Spirit and working many wonders through the apostles. This interpretation is called for by the expressions—in Him, in Himself. The Godhead was veiled in Christ until His death, but it then shone out and thrust itself forth, showing Christ to be not only man, but also the Son of God, inasmuch as He raised Himself from death by virtue of His own Divinity. Origen says, "The Son is as Paul says, the brightness of the Divine glory, from whence come its splendours upon every rational creature; for only the Son is capable of comprehending all the brightness of the Divine glory." The words " in Himself" may be referred, first, to "the Son of Man." God glorified the Man Christ, by showing that He, as man, had God indwelling in Him, and the Godhead of the Word; and secondly, to "God"—God showing that the Man Christ subsists in the Divine Person of the Word, that is, in God.

Ver. 33. — My little children. Notice the tenderness of Christ's feeling of love towards His apostles and the faithful. He says not " my sons," but " my little children," showing in our regard the heart, as it were, of a mother towards her newly born infants. Again, little children, because the apostles were as yet little in the faith and love of Christ, for they received its fulness and, as it were, their manhood from the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Symbolically Cyril says that all the Saints are little ones in relation to Christ.

Yet a little (a little time) I am with you—because an hour hence I shall be betrayed by Judas and given up to the Jews. Christ is here taking His last farewell of His own. Farewell, He says, My well-beloved children, for I am going away from you to death, and after that I shall not converse with you as we have been wont, but shall return to heaven.

Ye shall seek Me, and, as I said to the Jews, whither I go ye cannot come. I by My death return to heaven; you, 0 apostles, bereft of My presence, shall seek Me in the tribulations and persecutions that await you, and shall wish that I were with you that you might consult Me in your doubts and receive comfort and consolation from Me in your troubles; but whither I go you cannot come, both because you cannot by your own strength— with your own feet and your own natural powers—follow Me when I ascend into heaven, and you have not yet the supernatural strength of grace. For you are not yet strong enough to be able to accompany Me to the Cross and the martyr's death,—not yet so perfect in grace, strength, and love as to be fit for and worthy of the kingdom of heaven. Lastly, you cannot come there yet, because My Heavenly Father has determined to send you after My death to preach the gospel throughout the world, and bring all nations to My faith and salvation.

As I said to the Jews. This, says Chrysostom, He adds to show that it is nothing new or fresh, but foreseen and predicted long before, and decreed by the Father. Moreover, it was to reveal to them that they should suffer persecution and death at the hands of the Jews as He was ill-used and slain. Thirdly, to indicate that they, like the Jews, were to suffer many tribulations and, at length, death, though for a different reason and a different end. For the Jews, cut off by reason of their crimes, went into hell, but the Apostles, slain for the sake of the Gospel, took flight to heaven.

And I say to you now— both in order to protect and arm you against all the tribulations that threaten you, and also that you may know at this time that you cannot yet follow Me, but that you shall follow Me when perfected in strength and merits, and following Me dying in your own death, you shall earn by faith in Me the laurel of Martyrdom in the kingdom of Heaven. Hence Christ, clearly explaining to Peter, says at ver. 36; Thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt hereafter.

Ver. 34.— A new commandment I give to you; that you love one another. Why new? Various reasons are given. S. Augustine says, because the faithful, by love put off the old man and put on the new. " New," says Jansenius, "that is renewed by Christ, having grown out of date in the minds of men." Maldonatus says that " new " means excellent, surpassing. As in Rev. vii., the virgins are said to sing "a new song," that is a remarkable one.

But I say that the command of love is called new, because it is the chief characteristic of the New Testament, and specially commended by the words and example of Christ; just as, on the other hand, the command of fear was the old command and the chief one among the Jews. The new law is that of love, as the old was of fear.

Secondly, because Christ here taught us this precept of love more explicitly, and more forcibly than it had been taught before; and for this cause He sent forth the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, that we might fulfil this new commandment of love with a new spirit of love.

Thirdly, and more appropriately to the actual circumstances, new in respect of the new object and cause of love. For when Christ the Head of the Church was incarnate, there was brought about a peculiar community and union among the members of the Church, both among themselves and with Christ their Head, now made of like nature with themselves. A union both through the human nature assumed by Christ, and by the grace whose influence He, as Head, brought to bear upon us as members, and chiefly by that Sacrament of the Eucharist here instituted by Him. And this union is the foundation of that especial and more intimate love between Christ and Christians, and of that greater obligation to love one another. For by this union we are closely bound not only to the humanity of Christ, but also to His Godhead and to the Blessed Trinity, and by and through it to one another.

This sense is implied by Christ when He adds: that you love one another, as I have loved you— because I have loved you in a new and especial manner, taking upon Me your flesh and giving it to you by means of the Eucharist which I have just instituted as the food of your soul, that in this Sacrament I might unite you all to Me, and to one another in Me; for this cause I likewise demand of you, 0 Christians, that you love one another with a new and peculiar love, not merely as man loves man, because of their common nature, but as a Christian ought to love one who is united to himself in Christ, a fellow-member of the same Church of Christ and participator of the same Eucharist. For Toletus rightly observes that this command is given not to all men, but only to Christians.

As I have loved you, that ye love one another ; that as I, when I was in the form of God, for love of you took the form of a slave to teach you, save you, and make you blessed, so you too descend to any humiliation or hardship whatsoever in order to help one another. This is what John says in his first Epistle, iii 16—"In this have we known the love of God, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."

The words, " as I have loved you, " are but taken as relating to those which follow—" that ye love one another." Toletus, and others, place a colon before the former. The former part of the verse gives the substance of the precept, the latter signifies the mode of its proper execution. Moreover, this latter part supplies a sharp incentive to this mutual love, as if to say: The love of Christ to you, 0 Christians, should stir you up to love one another. For those whom Christ so loved you also, His followers, must love. And again Christ in His love asks that you love one another.

Ver. 35.— In this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love towards one another. My school is the discipline of love. If, then, you desire to follow Me as your Teacher, to be My disciples, and to be recognised as such by all men, love one another. This privilege is granted, therefore, only to charity. For it is not miracles that constitute us disciples of Christ, nor intellect, nor eloquence, nor strength, nor anything else but only love, says S. Chrysostom. For He is the Master, Leader, Prince, and Chief of love. Hence Paul says, Rom 13:8, "He that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law." Such were the early Christians of whom Luke, Act 4:32, says, "And the multitude of them that believed had one heart and one soul, and had all things in common."

Simon Peter says to Him : Lord, whither goest Thou? Peter, says Chrysostom, asked this not for information, but that he might follow Christ, whom he loved supremely. But Cyril says that he was presuming too far; for he thought that he could follow Christ through all, and he could not yet. Wherefore Christ repressed him, adding, "Thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt hereafter." At Rome, before the gate of S. Sebastian, there is a spot where stands a chapel, and there Christ appeared to S. Peter, who, at the entreaty of the Christians, was fleeing from the Mamertine Prison. And when Peter then asked Him, Lord, whither goest Thou? He answered, " I go to Rome, to be once more crucified." So S. Peter, understanding that Christ was speaking of him, went back to his prison at Rome, and was soon after crucified by Nero. And for this reason that chapel is called to this day the " Domine quo vadis?"

Jesus saith to him : Whither I go thou canst not follow Me now. Because thou hast not yet received the Holy Ghost, by whose strength thou mayest overcome death, says Cyril. For Christ must needs go first and conquer death. Thou hast not now that constancy of soul and strength to die for Me; but the Holy Ghost will come upon thee, and then shalt thou be able. Moreover, Christ had destined Peter to be Head of the apostles, Prince and Ruler of the Church after Himself, and Founder of the Roman Pontificate.

But thou shalt follow Me hereafter, on the cross, and, by the cross, to heaven. The love and zeal of Peter at this time merited for him the privilege of being the first to follow Christ on the cross.

Ver. 37. — Peter says to Him, Why can I not follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thee. Peter says this with his wonted fervour and zeal, but a zeal not according to knowledge. For, suspecting that Christ was going to death, as He had foretold, he offers himself as a comrade to share all dangers with Him. I am ready with Thee to take every chance of danger; I offer myself to Thee as a companion for all that may befall; with Thee and for Thee I will gladly welcome death. The affectionate feeling of Peter for Christ, though without effect, is worthy of praise; he had not yet received the wings of love from the Holy Ghost to fly to so lofty a cross.

Ver. 38.— Jesus answered him : Layest thou thy life down for Me? Verily I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow before thou deny Me thrice. Christ humbles Peter, who trusts too much in himself, and suffers him to fall, that he may learn to confide not in his own strength but in the grace of Christ. Wherefore Christ repeatedly made this prediction to Peter. Hear S. Chrysostom ( Hom. 72), "Thou shalt know by experience that thy love is nothing without Divine grace. And hence it appears that Jesus permitted this fall for his benefit."

Commentary -- Other

Contradiction: Joh 13:1

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus was crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.

The evidence from the Gospels that Jesus died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Jesus does not eat the Passover with his disciples.

Luke 14:12 says it was "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", which is also called "Passover". As the name suggest states, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for God makes it extremely clear, "eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the

community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread ". See also Exodus 12:1-20.

The Greek word for "unleavened bread" is 'azymos'. This is the word used by Mark in "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is 'artos'. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. "While they were eating, Jesus took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body." Mark 14:22. It is highly probably therefore that this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage strongly suggests this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that God had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast - artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened

bread - azymos).

Therefore, as this is true, what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, "when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb". Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Jesus life. So, indeed it may have been "customary" to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Secondly, the disciples ask Jesus "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" They had no idea that Jesus was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God's wrath upon Egypt. Jesus had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Jesus by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still 'ringing in their ears'. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Thirdly, in some ways the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. i.e. Luke 22 records Jesus saying that he had longed to eat "this" Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Jesus did make this last supper a sort of Passover meal (but not the real one). He wanted to have this special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant God promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from God's wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" as John the Baptist called Jesus (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, "I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, "For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

If this understanding is correct (one of two feasible explanations I opted for due to my current research), then there is no contradiction. Jesus died before the Passover meal.

Evidence: Joh 13:2

While " the devil made me do it" will not be a valid defense on Judgment Day, if more people would believe that the devil is at work in their lives, our prisons would be less full and human suffering would be much less.

So often we hear of people feeling " compelled" to kill, and thinking the impulses were their own. If potential homosexuals understood the influence of unclean spirits, they would be less likely to follow every grimy impulse that comes into their minds. Those who believe that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but demonic personalities, will then be less prone to be tools of darkness.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: John (Book Introduction)

THE Fourth Gospel

By Way of Introduction

Greatest of Books

The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel over all the books of the world. If Luke’s Gospel is the most beautiful, John’s Gospel is supreme in its height and depth and reach of thought. The picture of Christ here given is the one that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. It is not possible for a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be indifferent to modern critical views concerning the authorship and historical value of this Holy of Holies of the New Testament. Here we find The Heart of Christ (E. H. Sears), especially in chapters John 14-17. If Jesus did not do or say these things, it is small consolation to be told that the book at least has symbolic and artistic value for the believer. The language of the Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are not able to sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity challenge and charm us as we linger over it.

The Beloved Disciple

The book claims to be written by " the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh_21:20) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: " This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (Joh_21:24). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with Joh_20:31, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in Joh_21:24 is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in The Beloved Disciple (1922).

A Personal Witness

It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In Joh_1:14 he plainly says that " the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" ( etheasametha tēn doxan autou ). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in Joh_21:25 he employs the singular " I suppose" ( oimai ) in sharp distinction from the plural " we know" ( oidamen ) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness ( marturě , marturia ) so common in this Gospel (Joh_1:7, Joh_1:8, Joh_1:19; Joh_3:11, Joh_3:26, Joh_3:33; Joh_5:31; Joh_12:17; Joh_21:24, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luk_1:1-4). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark’s Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John’s Gospel claims to be the personal witness of " the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eyewitness in the vivid details.

With a Home in Jerusalem

It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus " to his own home" ( eis ta idia , Joh_19:27) from the Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest (Joh_18:15.). Delff ( Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt , 1890) argues that this fact shows that the Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin (Joh_7:45-52; Joh_11:47-53; Joh_12:10.). But at once we are confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (Joh_13:23). Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (Joh_21:1.) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the " Beloved Disciple" (Joh_21:20).

Only One John of Ephesus

It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa a.d. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase " the Elder John " ( ho presbuteros Iōannēs ) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by " the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. " Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord’s Life" (Bousset, Die Offenbarumg des Joh. , p. 38, translation of Nolloth, The Fourth Evangelist , p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.

No Early Martyrdom for the Apostle John

In 1862 a fragment of the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, was published. It is the Codex Coislinianus , Paris, 305, which differs from the other manuscripts of this author in saying that John according to Papias was slain by the Jews ( hupo Ioudaiōn anēirethē ) while the other manuscripts say that John rested in peace ( en eirēnēi anepausato ). The passage also quotes Eusebius to the effect that John received Asia as his sphere of work and lived and died in Ephesus. This same George the Sinner misquotes Origen about the death of John for Origen really says that the Roman king condemned him to the Isle of Patmos, not to death. Another fragment of Philip of Side, apparently used by Georgius, makes the same erroneous reference to Papias. It is therefore a worthless legend growing out of the martyrdom promised James and John by Jesus (Mar_10:39; Mat_20:23) and realized by James first of all (Act_12:1.). John drank the cup in the exile to Patmos. The correction to Peter in Joh_21:20-23 would have no meaning if the Apostle John had already been put to death.

The Author the Apostle John

Loisy ( Le Quatr. Evangile , p. 132) says that if one takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does not take it " literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not use his own name instead of a nom de plume . Reference can be made to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no one of which gives the author’s name. One can see a reason for the turn here given since the book consists so largely of personal experiences of the author with Christ. He thus avoids the too frequent use of the personal pronoun and preserves the element of witness which marks the whole book. One by one the other twelve apostles disappear if we test their claims for the authorship. In the list of seven in chapter John 21 it is easy to drop the names of Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (Act_12:1). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle John as the author.

Early and Clear Witness to the Apostle John

Ignatius ( ad Philad . vii. 1) about a.d. 110 says of the Spirit that " he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to Joh_3:8. Polycarp ( ad Phil . S 7) quotes 1Jo_4:2, 1Jo_4:3. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell " of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his Diatessaron out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch ( ad Autol . ii. 22) calls John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about a.d. 180. The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has stronger external evidence.

The Use of the Synoptic Gospels

As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (Joh_2:23; Joh_6:4) and another (Joh_5:1) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord’s public ministry (" the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John 1:19-4:45). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John 1:1-18) relates the Incarnation to God’s eternal purpose as in Col_1:14-20 and Heb_1:1-3 and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time ( Logos - Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

A Different Style of Teaching

So different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon’s Memorabilia and of Plato’s Dialogues . There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters John 7-11. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Mat_11:25-30; Luk_10:21-24). The use of " the Father" and " the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

The Same Style in the Discourses

It is further objected that there is no difference in style between the discourses of Jesus in John’s Gospel and his own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, Joh_3:16-21. Does the discourse of Jesus end with Joh_3:15, Joh_3:16, or Joh_3:21? So in Joh_12:44-50. Does John give here a resumé of Christ’s teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ as in chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, 9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures including that of John’s Gospel for the whole view of Christ.

Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel

It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his Diatessaron , the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter John 11 which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke’s account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in Matt 23, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter John 21 with that in Luke 5, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter John 12 the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in Luke 7, making John’s Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter John 1 is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (1910).

Like the Johannine Epistles

Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as " the Elder" ( ho presbuteros ), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical " Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself " the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Pe_5:1) he calls himself " your fellow-elder" ( ho sunpresbuteros ). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in 1Jo_1:1-4 and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the aeon Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in 1Jo_2:22. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

But Different from the Apocalypse

It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Rev_1:4, Rev_1:9; Rev_22:8), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a " Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton ( Prolegomena , p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: " If its date was 95 a.d., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. So one ventures to call attention to the statement in Act_4:13 where Peter and John are described as agrammatoi kai idiōtai (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John’s friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan’s Greek Papyri , for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton’s dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

The Unity of the Gospel

This has been attacked in various ways in spite of the identity of style throughout. There are clearly three parts in the Gospel: the Prologue, John 1:1-18, the Body of the Book, John 1:19-20:31, the Epilogue, John 21. But there is no evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter. This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but here again there is no proof and no real reason for the supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped at Joh_20:31 and then added John 21 before sending the book forth after his friends added Joh_21:24 as their endorsement of the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there. Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands even if that be true.

Original Language of the Book

The late Dr. C. F. Burney of Oxford wrote a volume called, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922) in which he tried to prove that the Fourth Gospel is really the first in time and was originally written in Aramaic. The theory excited some interest, but did not convince either Aramaic or Greek scholars to an appreciable extent. Some of the examples cited are plausible and some quite fanciful. This theory cannot be appealed to in any serious interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. The author was beyond doubt a Jew, but he wrote in the Koiné Greek of his time that is comparatively free from crude Semiticisms, perhaps due in part to the help of the friends in Ephesus.

The Purpose of the Book

He tells us himself in Joh_20:30. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: " But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in Christ.

John’s Portrait of Christ

No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: " And the Word was God" (Joh_1:1) and in the correct text of Joh_1:18, " God only begotten" ( theos monogenēs ). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: " This is the Son of God" (Joh_1:34). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (Joh_5:18) and the claim of Christ himself (Joh_5:20-23; Joh_6:48; Joh_8:12, Joh_8:58; Joh_11:25; Joh_14:9; Joh_17:5) with the full and frank conviction of the author in Joh_20:31. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term theos applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my The Christ of the Logia (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ’s crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly ( Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah , 1900; St. John’s Portrait of Christ , 1910).

JFB: John (Book Introduction)

THE author of the Fourth Gospel was the younger of the two sons of Zebedee, a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, who resided at Bethsaida, where were born Peter and Andrew his brother, and Philip also. His mother's name was Salome, who, though not without her imperfections (Mat 20:20-28), was one of those dear and honored women who accompanied the Lord on one of His preaching circuits through Galilee, ministering to His bodily wants; who followed Him to the cross, and bought sweet spices to anoint Him after His burial, but, on bringing them to the grave, on the morning of the First Day of the week, found their loving services gloriously superseded by His resurrection ere they arrived. His father, Zebedee, appears to have been in good circumstances, owning a vessel of his own and having hired servants (Mar 1:20). Our Evangelist, whose occupation was that of a fisherman with his father, was beyond doubt a disciple of the Baptist, and one of the two who had the first interview with Jesus. He was called while engaged at his secular occupation (Mat 4:21-22), and again on a memorable occasion (Luk 5:1-11), and finally chosen as one of the Twelve Apostles (Mat 10:2). He was the youngest of the Twelve--the "Benjamin," as DA COSTA calls him--and he and James his brother were named in the native tongue by Him who knew the heart, "Boanerges," which the Evangelist Mark (Mar 3:17) explains to mean "Sons of thunder"; no doubt from their natural vehemence of character. They and Peter constituted that select triumvirate of whom see on Luk 9:28. But the highest honor bestowed on this disciple was his being admitted to the bosom place with his Lord at the table, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh 13:23; Joh 20:2; Joh 21:7, Joh 20:24), and to have committed to him by the dying Redeemer the care of His mother (Joh 19:26-27). There can be no reasonable doubt that this distinction was due to a sympathy with His own spirit and mind on the part of John which the all-penetrating Eye of their common Master beheld in none of the rest; and although this was probably never seen either in his life or in his ministry by his fellow apostles, it is brought out wonderfully in his writings, which, in Christ-like spirituality, heavenliness, and love, surpass, we may freely say, all the other inspired writings.

After the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we find him in constant but silent company with Peter, the great spokesman and actor in the infant Church until the accession of Paul. While his love to the Lord Jesus drew him spontaneously to the side of His eminent servant, and his chastened vehemence made him ready to stand courageously by him, and suffer with him, in all that his testimony to Jesus might cost him, his modest humility, as the youngest of all the apostles, made him an admiring listener and faithful supporter of his brother apostle rather than a speaker or separate actor. Ecclesiastical history is uniform in testifying that John went to Asia Minor; but it is next to certain that this could not have been till after the death both of Peter and Paul; that he resided at Ephesus, whence, as from a center, he superintended the churches of that region, paying them occasional visits; and that he long survived the other apostles. Whether the mother of Jesus died before this, or went with John to Ephesus, where she died and was buried, is not agreed. One or two anecdotes of his later days have been handed down by tradition, one at least bearing marks of reasonable probability. But it is not necessary to give them here. In the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) he was banished to "the isle that is called Patmos" (a small rocky and then almost uninhabited island in the Ægean Sea), "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:9). IRENÆUS and EUSEBIUS say that this took place about the end of Domitian's reign. That he was thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil, and miraculously delivered, is one of those legends which, though reported by TERTULLIAN and JEROME, is entitled to no credit. His return from exile took place during the brief but tolerant reign of Nerva; he died at Ephesus in the reign of Trajan [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 3.23], at an age above ninety, according to some; according to others, one hundred; and even one hundred twenty, according to others still. The intermediate number is generally regarded as probably the nearest to the truth.

As to the date of this Gospel, the arguments for its having been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem (though relied on by some superior critics) are of the slenderest nature; such as the expression in Joh 5:2, "there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool," &c.; there being no allusion to Peter's martyrdom as having occurred according to the prediction in Joh 21:18 --a thing too well known to require mention. That it was composed long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and after the decease of all the other apostles, is next to certain, though the precise time cannot be determined. Probably it was before his banishment, however; and if we date it between the years 90 and 94, we shall probably be close to the truth.

As to the readers for whom it was more immediately designed, that they were Gentiles we might naturally presume from the lateness of the date; but the multitude of explanations of things familiar to every Jew puts this beyond all question.

No doubt was ever thrown upon the genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel till about the close of the eighteenth century; nor were these embodied in any formal attack upon it till BRETSCHNEIDER, in 1820, issued his famous treatise [Probabilia], the conclusions of which he afterwards was candid enough to admit had been satisfactorily disproved. To advert to these would be as painful as unnecessary; consisting as they mostly do of assertions regarding the Discourses of our Lord recorded in this Gospel which are revolting to every spiritual mind. The Tubingen school did their best, on their peculiar mode of reasoning, to galvanize into fresh life this theory of the post-Joannean date of the Fourth Gospel; and some Unitarian critics still cling to it. But to use the striking language of VAN OOSTERZEE regarding similar speculations on the Third Gospel, "Behold, the feet of them that shall carry it out dead are already at the door" (Act 5:9). Is there one mind of the least elevation of spiritual discernment that does not see in this Gospel marks of historical truth and a surpassing glory such as none of the other Gospels possess, brightly as they too attest their own verity; and who will not be ready to say that if not historically true, and true just as it stands, it never could have been by mortal man composed or conceived?

Of the peculiarities of this Gospel, we note here only two. The one is its reflective character. While the others are purely narrative, the Fourth Evangelist, "pauses, as it were, at every turn," as DA COSTA says [Four Witnesses, p. 234], "at one time to give a reason, at another to fix the attention, to deduce consequences, or make applications, or to give utterance to the language of praise." See Joh 2:20-21, Joh 2:23-25; Joh 4:1-2; Joh 7:37-39; Joh 11:12-13, Joh 11:49-52; Joh 21:18-19, Joh 21:22-23. The other peculiarity of this Gospel is its supplementary character. By this, in the present instance, we mean something more than the studiousness with which he omits many most important particulars in our Lord's history, for no conceivable reason but that they were already familiar as household words to all his readers, through the three preceding Gospels, and his substituting in place of these an immense quantity of the richest matter not found in the other Gospels. We refer here more particularly to the nature of the additions which distinguish this Gospel; particularly the notices of the different Passovers which occurred during our Lord's public ministry, and the record of His teaching at Jerusalem, without which it is not too much to say that we could have had but a most imperfect conception either of the duration of His ministry or of the plan of it. But another feature of these additions is quite as noticeable and not less important. "We find," to use again the words of DA COSTA [Four Witnesses, pp. 238, 239], slightly abridged, "only six of our Lord's miracles recorded in this Gospel, but these are all of the most remarkable kind, and surpass the rest in depth, specialty of application, and fulness of meaning. Of these six we find only one in the other three Gospels--the multiplication of the loaves. That miracle chiefly, it would seem, on account of the important instructions of which it furnished the occasion (John 6:1-71), is here recorded anew. The five other tokens of divine power are distinguished from among the many recorded in the three other Gospels by their furnishing a still higher display of power and command over the ordinary laws and course of nature. Thus we find recorded here the first of all the miracles that Jesus wrought--the changing of water into wine (Joh 2:1-11), the cure of the nobleman's son at a distance (Joh 4:43-54); of the numerous cures of the lame and the paralytic by the word of Jesus, only one--of the man impotent for thirty and eight years (Joh 5:1-9); of the many cures of the blind, one only--of the man born blind (Joh 9:1-12); the restoration of Lazarus, not from a deathbed, like Jairus' daughter, nor from a bier, like the widow of Nain's son, but from the grave, and after lying there four days, and there sinking into corruption (John 11:1-44); and lastly, after His resurrection, the miraculous draught of fishes on the Sea of Tiberias (Joh 21:5-11). But these are all recorded chiefly to give occasion for the record of those astonishing discourses and conversations, alike with friends and with foes, with His disciples and with the multitude which they drew forth."

Other illustrations of the peculiarities of this Gospel will occur, and other points connected with it be adverted to, in the course of the Commentary.

JFB: John (Outline)

• THE WORD MADE FLESH. (Joh 1:1-14)
• A SAYING OF THE BAPTIST CONFIRMATORY OF THIS. (Joh 1:15)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. (Joh 1:16-18)
• THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY TO CHRIST. (John 1:19-36)
• FIRST GATHERING OF DISCIPLES--JOHN ANDREW, SIMON, PHILIP, NATHANAEL. (Joh 1:37-51)
• FIRST MIRACLE, WATER MADE WINE--BRIEF VISIT TO CAPERNAUM. (Joh 2:1-12)
• CHRIST'S FIRST PASSOVER--FIRST CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE. (Joh 2:13-25)
• NIGHT INTERVIEW OF NICODEMUS WITH JESUS. (John 3:1-21)
• JESUS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE BAPTIST--HIS NOBLE TESTIMONY TO HIS MASTER. (John 3:22-36)
• CHRIST AND THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA--THE SAMARITANS OF SYCHAR. (John 4:1-42)
• SECOND GALILEAN MIRACLE--HEALING OF THE COURTIER'S SON. (Joh 4:43-54)
• THE IMPOTENT MAN HEALED--DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE PERSECUTION ARISING THEREUPON. (John 5:1-47)
• FIVE THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED. (Joh 6:1-13)
• JESUS WALKS ON THE SEA. (Joh 6:14-21)
• JESUS FOLLOWED BY THE MULTITUDES TO CAPERNAUM, DISCOURSES TO THEM IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF THE BREAD OF LIFE--EFFECT OF THIS ON TWO CLASSES OF THE DISCIPLES. (John 6:22-71) These verses are a little involved, from the Evangelist's desire to mention every circumstance, however minute, that might call up the scene as vividly to the reader as it stood before his own view.
• CHRIST AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. (John 7:1-53)
• THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY. (Joh 8:1-11)
• FURTHER DISCOURSES OF JESUS--ATTEMPT TO STONE HIM. (John 8:12-59)
• THE OPENING OF THE EYES OF ONE BORN BLIND, AND WHAT FOLLOWED ON IT. (John 9:1-41)
• THE GOOD SHEPHERD. (John 10:1-21)
• DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION--FROM THE FURY OF HIS ENEMIES JESUS ESCAPES BEYOND JORDAN, WHERE MANY BELIEVE ON HIM. (John 10:22-42)
• LAZARUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD--THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS. (John 11:1-46)
• THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY. (Joh 12:1-11)
• CHRIST'S TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. (Joh 12:12-19)
• SOME GREEKS DESIRE TO SEE JESUS--THE DISCOURSE AND SCENE THEREUPON. (John 12:20-36)
• AT THE LAST SUPPER JESUS WASHES THE DISCIPLES' FEET--THE DISCOURSE ARISING THEREUPON. (John 13:1-20)
• THE TRAITOR INDICATED--HE LEAVES THE SUPPER ROOM. (Joh 13:21-30)
• DISCOURSE AFTER THE TRAITOR'S DEPARTURE--PETER'S SELF-CONFIDENCE--HIS FALL PREDICTED. (Joh 13:31-38)
• DISCOURSE AT THE TABLE, AFTER SUPPER. (John 14:1-31)
• DISCOURSE AT THE SUPPER TABLE CONTINUED. (John 15:1-27) The spiritual oneness of Christ and His people, and His relation to them as the Source of all their spiritual life and fruitfulness, are here beautifully set forth by a figure familiar to Jewish ears (Isa 5:1, &c.).
• DISCOURSE AT THE SUPPER TABLE CONCLUDED. (John 16:1-33)
• THE INTERCESSORY PRAYER. (John 17:1-26)
• BETRAYAL AND APPREHENSION OF JESUS. (Joh 18:1-13)
• JESUS BEFORE PILATE. (Joh 18:28-40)
• JESUS BEFORE PILATE--SCOURGED--TREATED WITH OTHER SEVERITIES AND INSULTS--DELIVERED UP, AND LED AWAY TO BE CRUCIFIED. (John 19:1-16)
• CRUCIFIXION AND DEATH OF THE LORD JESUS. (Joh 19:17-30)
• BURIAL OF CHRIST. (Joh 19:31-42)
• MARY'S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE, AND RETURN TO IT WITH PETER AND JOHN--HER RISEN LORD APPEARS TO HER. (John 20:1-18)
• JESUS APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES. (Joh 20:19-23)
• JESUS AGAIN APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES. (Joh 20:24-29)
• FIRST CLOSE OF THIS GOSPEL. (Joh 20:30-31)
• SUPPLEMENTARY PARTICULARS. (John 21:1-23)
• FINAL CLOSE OF THIS GOSPEL. (Joh 21:24-25)
• JESUS BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS--FALL OF PETER. (Joh 18:13-27)

TSK: John (Book Introduction)

John, who, according to the unanimous testimony of the ancient fathers and ecclesiastical writers, was the author of this Gospel, was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida, by Salome his wife (compare Mat 10:2, with Mat 27:55, Mat 27:56 and Mar 15:40), and brother of James the elder, whom " Herod killed with the sword," (Act 12:2). Theophylact says that Salome was the daughter of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by a former wife; and that consequently she was our Lord’s sister, and John was his nephew. He followed the occupation of his father till his call to the apostleship (Mat 4:21, Mat 4:22, Mar 1:19, Mar 1:20, Luk 5:1-10), which is supposed to have been when he was about twenty five years of age; after which he was a constant eye-witness of our Lord’s labours, journeyings, discourses, miracles, passion, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. After the ascension of our Lord he returned with the other apostles to Jerusalem, and with the rest partook of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, by which he was eminently qualified for the office of an Evangelist and Apostle. After the death of Mary, the mother of Christ, which is supposed to have taken place about fifteen years after the crucifixion, and probably after the council held in Jerusalem about ad 49 or 50 (Acts 15), at which he was present, he is said by ecclesiastical writers to have proceeded to Asia Minor, where he formed and presided over seven churches in as many cities, but chiefly resided at Ephesus. Thence he was banished by the emperor Domitian, in the fifteenth year of his reign, ad 95, to the isle of Patmos in the Agean sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse (Rev 1:9). On the accession of Nerva the following year, he was recalled from exile and returned to Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, and died in the hundredth year of his age, about ad 100, and in the third year of the emperor Trajan. It is generally believed that St. John was the youngest of the twelve apostles, and that he survived all the rest. Jerome, in his comment on Gal VI., says that he continued preaching when so enfeebled with age as to be obliged to be carried into the assembly; and that, not being able to deliver any long discourse, his custom was to say in every meeting, My dear children, love one another. The general current of ancient writers declares that the apostle wrote his Gospel at an advanced period of life, with which the internal evidence perfectly agrees; and we may safely refer it, with Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Mill, Lev. Clerc, and others, to the year 97. The design of St. John in writing his Gospel is said by some to have been to supply those important events which the other Evangelists had omitted, and to refute the notions of the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, or according to others, to refute the heresy of the Gnostics and Sabians. But, though many parts of his Gospel may be successfully quoted against the strange doctrines held by those sects, yet the apostle had evidently a more general end in view than the confutation of their heresies. His own words sufficiently inform us of his motive and design in writing this Gospel: " These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name" (Joh 20:31). Learned men are not wholly agreed concerning the language in which this Gospel was originally written. Salmasius, Grotius, and other writers, have imagined that St. John wrote it in his own native tongue, the Aramean or Syriac, and that it was afterwards translated into Greek. This opinion is not supported by any strong arguments, and is contradicted by the unanimous voice of antiquity, which affirms that he wrote it in Greek, which is the general and most probable opinion. The style of this Gospel indicates a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education; but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths. One thing very remarkable is an attempt to impress important truths more strongly on the minds of his readers, by employing in the expression of them both an affirmative proposition and a negative. It is manifestly not without design that he commonly passes over those passages of our Lord’s history and teaching which had been treated at large by other Evangelists, or if he touches them at all, he touches them but slightly, whilst he records many miracles which had been overlooked by the rest, and expatiates on the sublime doctrines of the pre-existence, the divinity, and the incarnation of the Word, the great ends of His mission, and the blessings of His purchase.

TSK: John 13 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Joh 13:1, Jesus washes the disciples’ feet, and exhorts them to humility and charity; Joh 13:18, He foretells and discovers to John by a token, that Judas should betray him; v.31, commands them to love one another; v.36, and forewarns Peter of his denials.

Poole: John 13 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 13

MHCC: John (Book Introduction)

The apostle and evangelist, John, seems to have been the youngest of the twelve. He was especially favoured with our Lord's regard and confidence, so as to be spoken of as the disciple whom Jesus loved. He was very sincerely attached to his Master. He exercised his ministry at Jerusalem with much success, and outlived the destruction of that city, agreeably to Christ's prediction, Joh 21:22. History relates that after the death of Christ's mother, John resided chiefly at Ephesus. Towards the close of Domitian's reign he was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation. On the accession of Nerva, he was set at liberty, and returned to Ephesus, where it is thought he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, about A. D. 97, and died soon after. The design of this Gospel appears to be to convey to the Christian world, just notions of the real nature, office, and character of that Divine Teacher, who came to instruct and to redeem mankind. For this purpose, John was directed to select for his narrative, those passages of our Saviour's life, which most clearly displayed his Divine power and authority; and those of his discourses, in which he spake most plainly of his own nature, and of the power of his death, as an atonement for the sins of the world. By omitting, or only briefly mentioning, the events recorded by the other evangelists, John gave testimony that their narratives are true, and left room for the doctrinal statements already mentioned, and for particulars omitted in the other Gospels, many of which are exceedingly important.

MHCC: John 13 (Chapter Introduction)

(v. 1-17) Christ washes the disciples' feet.

(Joh 13:18-30) The treachery of Judas foretold.

(Joh 13:31-38) Christ commands the disciples to love one another.

Matthew Henry: John (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. John

It is not material to enquire when and where this gospel was written; we are sure that it was given by inspiration of God to John, the brother of James, one of the twelve apostles, distinguished by the honourable character of that disciple whom Jesus loved, one of the first three of the worthies of the Son of David, whom he took to be the witnesses of his retirements, particularly of his transfiguration and his agony. The ancients tell us that John lived longest of all the twelve apostles, and was the only one of them that died a natural death, all the rest suffering martyrdom; and some of them say that he wrote this gospel at Ephesus, at the request of the ministers of the several churches of Asia, in opposition to the heresy of Corinthus and the Ebionites, who held that our Lord was a mere man. It seems most probable that he wrote it before his banishment into the isle of Patmos, for there he wrote his Apocalypse, the close of which seems designed for the closing up of the canon of scripture; and, if so, this gospel was not written after. I cannot therefore give credit to those later fathers, who say that he wrote it in his banishment, or after his return from it, many years after the destruction of Jerusalem; when he was ninety years old, saith one of them; when he was a hundred, saith another of them. However, it is clear that he wrote last of the four evangelists, and, comparing his gospel with theirs, we may observe, 1. That he relates what they had omitted; he brings up the rear, and his gospel is as the rearward or gathering host; it gleans up what they has passed by. Thus there was a later collection of Solomon's wise sayings (Pro 25:1), and yet far short of what he delivered, 1Ki 4:32. 2. That he gives us more of the mystery of that of which the other evangelists gave us only the history. It was necessary that the matters of fact should be first settled, which was done in their declarations of those things which Jesus began both to do and teach, Luk 1:1; Act 1:1. But, this being done out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, John goes on to perfection (Heb 6:1), not laying again the foundation, but building upon it, leading us more within the veil. Some of the ancients observe that the other evangelists wrote more of the ta sōmatika - the bodily things of Christ; but John writes of the ta pneumatika - the spiritual things of the gospel, the life and soul of it; therefore some have called this gospel the key of the evangelists. Here is it that a door is opened in heaven, and the first voice we hear is, Come up hither, come up higher. Some of the ancients, that supposed the four living creatures in John's vision to represent the for evangelists, make John himself to be the flying eagle, so high does he soar, and so clearly does he see into divine and heavenly things.

Matthew Henry: John 13 (Chapter Introduction)

Our Saviour having finished his public discourses, in which he " endured the contradiction of sinners," now applies himself to a private conversation with his friends, in which he designed the consolation of saints. Henceforward we have an account of what passed between him and his disciples, who were to be entrusted with the affairs of his household, when he was gone into a far country; the necessary instructions and comforts he furnished them with. His hour being at hand, he applies himself to set his house in order. In this chapter I. He washes his disciples' feet (v. 1-17). II. He foretels who should betray him (Joh 13:18-30). III. He instructs them in the great doctrine of his own death, and the great duty of brotherly love (Joh 13:31-35). IV. He foretels Peter's denying him (Joh 13:36-38).

Barclay: John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT JOHN

The Gospel Of The EagleEye

For many Christian people the Gospel according to St. John is the most precious book in the New Testament. It is the book on which above all they feed their minds and nourish their hearts, and in which they rest their souls. Very often on stained glass windows and the like the gospel writers are represented in symbol by the figures of the four beasts whom the writer of the Revelation saw around the throne (Rev_4:7 ). The emblems are variously distributed among the gospel writers, but a common allocation is that the man stands for Mark, which is the plainest, the most straightforward and the most human of the gospels; the lion stands for Matthew, for he specially saw Jesus as the Messiah and the Lion of the tribe of Judah; the ox stands for Luke, because it is the animal of service and sacrifice, and Luke saw Jesus as the great servant of men and the universal sacrifice for all mankind; the eagle stands for John, because it alone of all living creatures can look straight into the sun and not be dazzled, and John has the most penetrating gaze of all the New Testament writers into the eternal mysteries and the eternal truths and the very mind of God. Many people find themselves closer to God and to Jesus Christ in John than in any other book in the world.

The Gospel That Is Different

But we have only to read the Fourth Gospel in the most cursory way to see that it is quite different from the other three. It omits so many things that they include. The Fourth Gospel has no account of the Birth of Jesus, of his baptism, of his temptations; it tells us nothing of the Last Supper, nothing of Gethsemane, and nothing of the Ascension. It has no word of the healing of any people possessed by devils and evil spirits. And, perhaps most surprising of all, it has none of the parable stories Jesus told which are so priceless a part of the other three gospels. In these other three gospels Jesus speaks either in these wonderful stories or in short, epigrammatic, vivid sentences which stick in the memory. But in the Fourth Gospel the speeches of Jesus are often a whole chapter long; and are often involved, argumentative pronouncements quite unlike the pithy, unforgettable sayings of the other three.

Even more surprising, the account in the Fourth Gospel of the facts of the life and ministry of Jesus is often different from that in the other three.

(i) John has a different account of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. In the other three gospels it is quite definitely stated that Jesus did not emerge as a preacher until after John the Baptist had been imprisoned. "Now after John was arrested Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God" (Mar_1:14 ; Luk_3:18 , Luk_3:20 ; Mat_4:12 ). But in John there is a quite considerable period during which the ministry of Jesus over-lapped with the activity of John the Baptist (Joh_3:22-30 ; Joh_4:1-2 ).

(ii) John has a different account of the scene of Jesusinistry. In the other three gospels the main scene of the ministry is Galilee and Jesus does not reach Jerusalem until the last week of his life. In John the main scene of the ministry is Jerusalem and Judaea, with only occasional withdrawals to Galilee (Joh_2:1-13 ; Joh_4:35 through Joh_5:1 ; Joh_6:1 through Joh_7:14 ). In John, Jesus is in Jerusalem for a Passover which occurred at the same time as the cleansing of the Temple, as John tells the story (Joh_2:13 ); he is in Jerusalem at the time of an unnamed feast (Joh_5:1 ); he is there for the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:2 , Joh_7:10 ); he is there at the Feast of Dedication in the winter-time (Joh_10:22 ). In fact according to the Fourth Gospel Jesus never left Jerusalem after that feast; after Jn 10 he is in Jerusalem all the time, which would mean a stay of months, from the winter-time of the Feast of the Dedication to the spring-time of the Passover at which he was crucified.

In point of fact in this particular matter John is surely right. The other gospels show us Jesus mourning over Jerusalem as the last week came on. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Mat_23:37 ; Luk_13:34 ). It is clear that Jesus could not have said that unless he had paid repeated visits to Jerusalem and made repeated appeals to it. It was impossible for him to say that on a first visit. In this John is unquestionably right.

It was in fact this difference of scene which provided Eusebius with one of the earliest explanations of the difference between the Fourth Gospel and the other three. He said that in his day (about A.D. 300) many people who were scholars held the following view. Matthew at first preached to the Hebrew people. The day came when he had to leave them and to go to other nations. Before he went he set down his story of the life of Jesus in Hebrew, "and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence." After Mark and Luke had published their gospels, John was still preaching the story of Jesus orally. "Finally he proceeded to write for the following reason. The three gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his hands too, they say that he fully accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.... They therefore say that John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of the deeds done before the imprisonment of John the Baptist.... John therefore records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.... The Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life." (Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 5: 24.)

So then according to Eusebius there is no contradiction at all between the Fourth Gospel and the other three; the difference is due to the fact that the Fourth Gospel is describing a ministry in Jerusalem, at least in its earlier chapters, which preceded the ministry in Galilee, and which took place while John the Baptist was still at liberty. It may well be that this explanation of Eusebius is at least in part correct.

(iii) John has a different account of the duration of Jesusinistry. The other three gospels, on the face of it, imply that it lasted only one year. Within the ministry there is only one Passover Feast. In John there are three Passovers, one at the Cleansing of the Temple (Joh_2:13 ); one near the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Joh_6:4 ); and the final Passover at which Jesus went to the Cross. According to John the ministry of Jesus would take a minimum of two years, and probably a period nearer three years, to cover its events. Again John is unquestionably right. If we read the other three gospels closely and carefully we can see that he is right. When the disciples plucked the ears of corn (Mar_2:23 ) it must have been spring-time. When the five thousand were fed, they sat down on the green grass (Mar_6:39 ); therefore it was spring-time again, and there must have been a year between the two events. There follows the tour through Tyre and Sidon, and the Transfiguration. At the Transfiguration Peter wished to build three booths and to stay there. It is most natural to think that it was the time of the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths and that that is why Peter made the suggestion (Mar_9:5 ). That would make the date early in October. There follows the space between that and the last Passover in April. Therefore, behind the narrative of the other three gospels lies the fact that Jesusinistry actually did last for at least three years, as John represents it.

(iv) It sometimes even happens that John differs in matters of fact from the other three. There are two outstanding examples. First, John puts the Cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesusinistry (Joh_2:13-22 ), the others put it at the end (Mar_11:15-17 ; Mat_21:12-13 ; Luk_19:45-46 ). Second, when we come to study the narratives in detail, we will see that John dates the crucifixion of Jesus on the day before the Passover, while the other gospels date it on the day of the Passover.

We can never shut our eyes to the obvious differences between John and the other gospels.

JohnSpecial Knowledge

One thing is certain--if John differs from the other three gospels, it is not because of ignorance and lack of information. The plain fact is that, if he omits much that they tell us, he also tells us much that they do not mention. John alone tells of the marriage feast at Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:1-11 ); of the coming of Nicodemus to Jesus (Joh_3:1-15 ); of the woman of Samaria Jn 4 ; of the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11 ); of the way in which Jesus washed his discipleseet (Joh_13:1-17 ); of Jesusonderful teaching about the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, which is scattered through Jn 14 Jn 15 Jn 16 and Jn 17 . It is only in John that some of the disciples really come alive. It is in John alone that Thomas speaks (Joh_11:16 ; Joh_14:5 ; Joh_20:24-29 ); that Andrew becomes a real personality (Joh_1:40-41 ; Joh_6:8-9 ; Joh_12:22 ); that we get a glimpse of the character of Philip (Joh_6:5-7 ; Joh_14:8-9 ); that we hear the carping protest of Judas at the anointing at Bethany (Joh_12:4-5 ). And the strange thing is that these little extra touches are intensely revealing. Johnpictures of Thomas and Andrew and Philip are like little cameos or vignettes in which the character of each man is etched in a way we cannot forget.

Further, again and again John has little extra details which read like the memories of one who was there. The loaves which the lad brought to Jesus were barley loaves (Joh_6:9 ); when Jesus came to the disciples as they crossed the lake in the storm they had rowed between three and four miles (Joh_6:19 ); there were six stone waterpots at Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:6 ); it is only John who tells of the four soldiers gambling for the seamless robe as Jesus died (Joh_19:23 ); he knows the exact weight of the myrrh and aloes which were used to anoint the dead body of Jesus (Joh_19:39 ); he remembers how the perfume of the ointment filled the house at the anointing at Bethany (Joh_12:3 ). Many of these things are such apparently unimportant details that they are inexplicable unless they are the memories of a man who was there.

However much John may differ from the other three gospels, that difference is not to be explained by ignorance but rather by the fact that he had more knowledge or better sources or a more vivid memory than the others.

Further evidence of the specialised information of the writer of the Fourth Gospel is his detailed knowledge of Palestine and of Jerusalem. He knows how long it took to build the Temple (Joh_2:20 ); that the Jews and the Samaritans had a permanent quarrel (Joh_4:9 ); the low Jewish view of women (Joh_4:9 ); the way in which the Jews regard the Sabbath (Joh_5:10 ; Joh_7:21-23 ; Joh_9:14 ). His knowledge of the geography of Palestine is intimate. He knows of two Bethanys, one of which is beyond Jordan (Joh_1:28 ; Joh_12:1 ); he knows that Bethsaida was the home of some of the disciples (Joh_1:44 ; Joh_12:21 ); that Cana is in Galilee (Joh_2:1 ; Joh_4:46 ; Joh_21:2 ); that Sychar is near Shechem (Joh_4:5 ). He has what one might call a street by street knowledge of Jerusalem. He knows the sheep-gate and the pool near it (Joh_5:2 ); the pool of Siloam (Joh_9:7 ); SolomonPorch (Joh_10:23 ); the brook Kidron (Joh_18:1 ); the pavement which is called Gabbatha (Joh_19:13 ); Golgotha, which is like a skull (Joh_19:17 ). It must be remembered that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 and that John did not write until A.D. 100 or thereby; and yet from his memory he knows Jerusalem like the back of his hand.

The Circumstances In Which John Wrote

We have seen that there are very real differences between the Fourth and the other three gospels; and we have seen that, whatever the reason, it was not lack of knowledge on Johnpart. We must now go on to ask, What was the aim with which John wrote? If we can discover this we will discover why he selected and treated his facts as he did.

The Fourth Gospel was written in Ephesus about the year A.D. 100. By that time two special features had emerged in the situation of the Christian church. First, Christianity had gone out into the Gentile world. By that time the Christian church was no longer predominantly Jewish; it was in fact overwhelmingly gentile. The vast majority of its members now came, not from a Jewish, but an Hellenistic background. That being so, Christianity had to be restated. It was not that the truth of Christianity had changed; but the terms and the categories in which it found expression had to be changed.

Take but one instance. A Greek might take up the Gospel according to St. Matthew. No sooner had he opened it than he was confronted with a long genealogy. Genealogies were familiar enough to the Jew but quite unintelligible to the Greek. He would read on. He would be confronted with a Jesus who was the Son of David, a king of whom the Greeks had never heard, and the symbol of a racial and nationalist ambition which was nothing to the Greek. He would be faced with the picture of Jesus as Messiah, a term of which the Greek had never heard. Must the Greek who wished to become a Christian be compelled to reorganize his whole thinking into Jewish categories? Must he learn a good deal about Jewish history and Jewish apocalyptic literature (which told about the coming of the Messiah) before he could become a Christian? As E. J. Goodspeed phrased it: "Was there no way in which he might be introduced directly to the values of Christian salvation without being for ever routed, we might even say, detoured, through Judaism?" The Greek was one of the worldgreat thinkers. Had he to abandon all his own great intellectual heritage in order to think entirely in Jewish terms and categories of thought?

John faced that problem fairly and squarely. And he found one of the greatest solutions which ever entered the mind of man. Later on, in the commentary, we shall deal much more fully with Johngreat solution. At the moment we touch on it briefly. The Greeks had two great conceptions.

(a) They had the conception of the Logos. In Greek logos (G3056) means two things--it means word and it means reason. The Jew was entirely familiar with the all-powerful word of God. "God said, Let there be light; and there was light" (Gen_1:3 ). The Greek was entirely familiar with the thought of reason. He looked at this world; he saw a magnificent and dependable order. Night and day came with unfailing regularity; the year kept its seasons in unvarying course; the stars and the planets moved in their unaltering path; nature had her unvarying laws. What produced this order? The Greek answered unhesitatingly, The Logos (G3056), the mind of God, is responsible for the majestic order of the world. He went on, What is it that gives man power to think, to reason and to know? Again he answered unhesitatingly, The Logos (G3056), the mind of God, dwelling within a man makes him a thinking rational being.

John seized on this. It was in this way that he thought of Jesus. He said to the Greeks, "All your lives you have been fascinated by this great, guiding, controlling mind of God. The mind of God has come to earth in the man Jesus. Look at him and you see what the mind and thought of God are like." John had discovered a new category in which the Greek might think of Jesus, a category in which Jesus was presented as nothing less than God acting in the form of a man.

(b) They had the conception of two worlds. The Greek always conceived of two worlds. The one was the world in which we live. It was a wonderful world in its way but a world of shadows and copies and unrealities. The other was the real world, in which the great realities, of which our earthly things are only poor, pale copies, stand for ever. To the Greek the unseen world was the real one; the seen world was only shadowy unreality.

Plato systematized this way of thinking in his doctrine of forms or ideas. He held that in the unseen world there was the perfect pattern of everything, and the things of this world were shadowy copies of these eternal patterns. To put it simply, Plato held that somewhere there was a perfect pattern of a table of which all earthly tables are inadequate copies; somewhere there was the perfect pattern of the good and the beautiful of which all earthly goodness and earthly beauty are imperfect copies. And the great reality, the supreme idea, the pattern of all patterns and the form of all forms was God. The great problem was how to get into this world of reality, how to get out of our shadows into the eternal truths.

John declares that that is what Jesus enables us to do. He is reality come to earth. The Greek word for real in this sense is alethinos (G228); it is very closely connected with the word alethes (G227), which means true, and aletheia (G225), which means "the truth." The King James and Revised Standard Versions translate alethinos (G228) true; they would be far better to translate it "real." Jesus is the real light (Joh_1:9 ); Jesus is the real bread (Joh_6:32 ); Jesus is the real vine (Joh_15:1 ); to Jesus belongs the real judgment (Joh_8:16 ). Jesus alone has reality in our world of shadows and imperfections.

Something follows from that. Every action that Jesus did was, therefore, not only an act in time but a window which allows us to see into reality. That is what John means when he talks of Jesusiracles as signs (semeia - G4592). The wonderful works of Jesus were not simply wonderful; they were windows opening onto the reality which is God. This explains why John tells the miracle stories in a quite different way from the other three gospel writers. There are two differences.

(a) In the Fourth Gospel we miss the note of compassion which is in the miracle stories of the others. In the others Jesus is moved with compassion for the leper (Mar_1:41 ); his sympathy goes out to Jairus (Mar_5:22 ); he is sorry for the father of the epileptic boy (Mar_9:14 ); when he raises to life the son of the widow of Nain, Luke says with an infinite tenderness, "He gave him to his mother" (Luk_7:15 ). But in John the miracles are not so much deeds of compassion as deeds which demonstrate the glory of Christ. After the miracle at Cana of Galilee, John comments: "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory" (Joh_2:11 ). The raising of Lazarus happens "for the glory of God" (Joh_11:4 ). The blind manblindness existed to allow a demonstration of the glory of the works of God (Joh_9:3 ). To John it was not that there was no love and compassion in the miracles; but in every one of them he saw the glory of the reality of God breaking into time and into human affairs.

(b) Often the miracles of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are accompanied by a long discourse. The feeding of the five thousand is followed by the long discourse on the bread of life (Jn 6 ); the healing of the blind man springs from the saying that Jesus is the light of the world (Jn 9 ); the raising of Lazarus leads up to the saying that Jesus is the resurrection and the life (Jn 11 ). To John the miracles were not simply single events in time; they were insights into what God is always doing and what Jesus always is; they were windows into the reality of God. Jesus did not merely once feed five thousand people; that was an illustration that he is for ever the real bread of life. Jesus did not merely once open the eyes of a blind man; he is for ever the light of the world. Jesus did not merely once raise Lazarus from the dead; he is for ever and for all men the resurrection and the life. To John a miracle was never an isolated act; it was always a window into the reality of what Jesus always was and always is and always did and always does.

It was with this in mind that that great scholar Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 230) arrived at one of the most famous and true of all verdicts about the origin and aim of the Fourth Gospel. It was his view that the gospels containing the genealogies had been written first--that is, Luke and Matthew; that then Mark at the request of many who had heard Peter preach composed his gospel, which embodied the preaching material of Peter; and that then "last of all, John, perceiving that what had reference to the bodily things of Jesusinistry had been sufficiently related, and encouraged by his friends, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote a spiritual gospel" (quoted in Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 6 : 14). What Clement meant was that John was not so much interested in the mere facts as in the meaning of the facts, that it was not facts he was after but truth. John did not see the events of Jesusife simply as events in time; he saw them as windows looking into eternity, and he pressed towards the spiritual meaning of the events and the words of Jesusife in a way that the other three gospels did not attempt.

That is still one of the truest verdicts on the Fourth Gospel ever reached. John did write, not an historical, but a spiritual gospel.

So then, first of all, John presented Jesus as the mind of God in a person come to earth, and as the one person who possesses reality instead of shadows and able to lead men out of the shadows into the real world of which Plato and the great Greeks had dreamed. The Christianity which had once been clothed in Jewish categories had taken to itself the greatness of the thought of the Greeks.

The Rise Of The Heresies

The second of the great facts confronting the church when the Fourth Gospel was written was the rise of heresy. It was now seventy years since Jesus had been crucified. By this time the church was an organisation and an institution. Theologies and creeds were being thought out and stated; and inevitably the thoughts of some people went down mistaken ways and heresies resulted. A heresy is seldom a complete untruth; it usually results when one facet of the truth is unduly emphasised. We can see at least two of the heresies which the writer of the Fourth Gospel sought to combat.

(a) There were certain Christians, especially Jewish Christians, who gave too high a place to John the Baptist. There was something about him which had an inevitable appeal to the Jews. He walked in the prophetic succession and talked with the prophetic voice. We know that in later times there was an accepted sect of John the Baptist within the orthodox Jewish faith. In Act_19:1-7 we come upon a little group of twelve men on the fringe of the Christian church who had never gotten beyond the baptism of John.

Over and over again the Fourth Gospel quietly, but definitely, relegates John to his proper place. Over and over again John himself denies that he has ever claimed or possessed the highest place, and without qualification yields that place to Jesus. We have already seen that in the other gospels the ministry of Jesus did not begin until John the Baptist had been put into prison, but that in the Fourth Gospel their ministries overlap. The writer of the Fourth Gospel may well have used that arrangement to show John and Jesus in actual meeting and to show that John used these meetings to admit, and to urge others to admit, the supremacy of Jesus. It is carefully pointed out that John is not that light (Joh_1:8 ). He is shown as quite definitely disclaiming all Messianic aspirations (Joh_1:20 ; Joh_3:28 ; Joh_4:1 ; Joh_10:41 ). It is not even permissible to think of him as the highest witness (Joh_5:36 ). There is no criticism at all of John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel; but there is a rebuke to those who would give him a place which ought to belong to Jesus and to Jesus alone.

(b) A certain type of heresy which was very widely spread in the days when the Fourth Gospel was written is called by the general name of Gnosticism. Without some understanding of it much of Johngreatness and much of his aim will be missed. The basic doctrine of Gnosticism was that matter is essentially evil and spirit is essentially good. The Gnostics went on to argue that on that basis God himself cannot touch matter and therefore did not create the world. What he did was to put out a series of emanations. Each of these emanations was further from him, until at last there was one so distant from him that it could touch matter. That emanation was the creator of the world.

By itself that idea is bad enough, but it was made worse by an addition. The Gnostics held that each emanation knew less and less about God, until there was a stage when the emanations were not only ignorant of God but actually hostile to him. So they finally came to the conclusion that the creator god was not only different from the real God, but was also quite ignorant of and actively hostile to him. Cerinthus, one of the leaders of the Gnostics, said that "the world was created, not by God, but by a certain power far separate from him, and far distant from that Power who is over the universe, and ignorant of the God who is over all."

The Gnostics believed that God had nothing to do with the creating of the world. That is why John begins his gospel with the ringing statement: "All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that was made" (Joh_1:3 ). That is why John insists that "God so loved the world" (Joh_3:16 ). In face of the Gnostics who so mistakenly spiritualized God into a being who could not possibly have anything to do with the world, John presented the Christian doctrine of the God who made the world and whose presence fills the world that he has made.

The beliefs of the Gnostics impinged on their ideas of Jesus.

(a) Some of the Gnostics held that Jesus was one of the emanations which had proceeded from God. They held that he was not in any real sense divine; that he was only a kind of demigod who was more or less distant from the real God; that he was simply one of a chain of lesser beings between God and the world.

(b) Some of the Gnostics held that Jesus had no real body. A body is matter and God could not touch matter; therefore Jesus was a kind of phantom without real flesh and blood. They held, for instance, that when he stepped on the ground he left no footprint, for his body had neither weight nor substance. They could never have said: "The Word became flesh" (Joh_1:14 ). Augustine tells how he had read much in the work of the philosophers of his day; he had found much that was very like what was in the New Testament, but, he said: "e Word was made flesh and dwelt among us did not read there." That is why John in his First Letter insists that Jesus came in the flesh, and declares that any one who denies that fact is moved by the spirit of antichrist (1Jo_4:3 ). This particular heresy is known as Docetism. Docetism comes from the Greek word dokein (G1380) which means to seem ; and the heresy is so called because it held that Jesus only seemed to be a man.

(c) Some Gnostics held a variation of that heresy. They held that Jesus was a man into whom the Spirit of God came at his baptism; that Spirit remained with him throughout his life until the end; but since the Spirit of God could never suffer and die, it left him before he was crucified. They gave Jesusry on the Cross as : "My power, my power, why hast thou forsaken me?" And in their books they told of people talking on the Mount of Olives to a form which looked exactly like Jesus while the man Jesus died on the Cross.

So then the Gnostic heresies issued in one of two beliefs. They believed either that Jesus was not really divine but simply one of a series of emanations from God, or that he was not in any sense human but a kind of phantom in the shape of a man. The Gnostic beliefs at one and the same time destroyed the real godhead and the real manhood of Jesus.

The Humanity Of Jesus

The fact that John is out to correct both these Gnostic tendencies explains a curious paradoxical double emphasis in his gospel. On the one hand, there is no gospel which so uncompromisingly stresses the real humanity of Jesus. Jesus was angry with those who bought and sold in the Temple courts (Joh_2:15 ); he was physically tired as he sat by the well which was near Sychar in Samaria (Joh_4:6 ); his disciples offered him food in the way in which they would offer it to any hungry man (Joh_4:31 ); he had sympathy with those who were hungry and with those who were afraid (Joh_6:5 , Joh_6:20 ); he knew grief and he wept tears as any mourner might do (Joh_11:33 , Joh_11:35 , Joh_11:38 ); in the agony of the Cross the cry of his parched lips was: "I thirst" (Joh_19:28 ). The Fourth Gospel shows us a Jesus who was no shadowy, docetic figure; it shows us one who knew the weariness of an exhausted body and the wounds of a distressed mind and heart. It is the truly human Jesus whom the Fourth Gospel sets before us.

The Deity Of Jesus

On the other hand, there is no gospel which sets before us such a view of the deity of Jesus.

(a) John stresses the preexistence of Jesus. "Before Abraham was," said Jesus, "I am" (Joh_8:58 ). He talks of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was made (Joh_17:5 ). Again and again he speaks of his coming down from heaven (Joh_6:33-38 ). John saw in Jesus one who had always been, even before the world began.

(b) The Fourth Gospel stresses more than any of the others the omniscience of Jesus. It is Johnview that apparently miraculously Jesus knew the past record of the woman of Samaria (Joh_4:16-17 ); apparently without anyone telling him he knew how long the man beside the healing pool had been ill (Joh_5:6 ); before he asked it, he knew the answer to the question he put to Philip (Joh_6:6 ); he knew that Judas would betray him (Joh_6:61-64 ); he knew of the death of Lazarus before anyone told him of it (Joh_11:14 ). John saw in Jesus one who had a special and miraculous knowledge independent of anything which any man might tell him. He needed to ask no questions because he knew all the answers.

(c) The Fourth Gospel stresses the fact, as John saw it, that Jesus always acted entirely on his own initiative and uninfluenced by anyone else. It was not his motherrequest which moved him to the miracle at Cana of Galilee; it was his own personal decision (Joh_2:4 ); the urging of his brothers had nothing to do with the visit which he paid to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (Joh_7:10 ); no man took his life from him--no man could; he laid it down purely voluntarily (Joh_10:18 ; Joh_19:11 ). As John saw it, Jesus had a divine independence from all human influence. He was self-determined.

To meet the Gnostics and their strange beliefs John presents us with a Jesus who was undeniably human and who yet was undeniably divine.

The Author Of The Fourth Gospel

We have seen that the aim of the writer of the Fourth Gospel was to present the Christian faith in such a way that it would commend itself to the Greek world to which Christianity had gone out, and also to combat the heresies and mistaken ideas which had arisen within the church. We go on to ask, Who is that writer? Tradition answers unanimously that the author was John the apostle. We shall see that beyond doubt the authority of John lies behind the gospel, although it may well be that its actual form and penmanship did not come from his hand. Let us, then, collect what we know about him.

He was the younger son of Zebedee, who possessed a fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee and was well enough off to be able to employ hired servants to help him with his work (Mar_1:19-20 ). His mother was Salome, and it seems likely that she was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mat_27:56 ; Mar_16:1 ). With his brother James he obeyed the call of Jesus (Mar_1:20 ). It would seem that James and John were in partnership with Peter in the fishing trade (Luk_5:7-10 ). He was one of the inner circle of the disciples, for the lists of the disciples always begin with the names of Peter, James and John, and there were certain great occasions when Jesus took these three specially with him (Mar_3:17 ; Mar_5:37 ; Mar_9:2 ; Mar_14:33 ).

In character he was clearly a turbulent and ambitious man. Jesus gave to him and to his brother the name Boanerges, which the gospel writers take to mean Sons of Thunder. John and his brother James were completely exclusive and intolerant (Mar_9:38 ; Luk_9:49 ). So violent was their temper that they were prepared to blast a Samaritan village out of existence because it would not give them hospitality when they were on their journey to Jerusalem (Luk_9:54 ). Either they or their mother Salome had the ambition that when Jesus came into his kingdom, they might be his principal ministers of state (Mar_10:35 ; Mat_20:20 ). In the other three gospels John appears as a leader of the apostolic band, one of the inner circle, and yet a turbulent ambitious and intolerant character.

In the Book of Acts John always appears as the companion of Peter, and he himself never speaks at all. His name is still one of the three names at the head of the apostolic list (Acts 1:13). He is with Peter when the lame man is healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Act_3:1 ). With Peter he is brought before the Sanhedrin and faces the Jewish leaders with a courage and a boldness that astonished them (Act_4:1-13 ). With Peter he goes from Jerusalem to Samaria to survey the work done by Philip (Act_8:14 ).

In Paulletters he appears only once. In Galatians 2:9 he is named as one of the pillars of the church along with Peter and James, and with them is depicted as giving his approval to the work of Paul.

John was a strange mixture. He was one of the leaders of the Twelve; he was one of the inner circle of Jesuslosest friends; at the same time he was a man of temper and ambition and intolerance, and yet of courage.

We may follow John into the stories told of him in the early church. Eusebius tells us that he was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian (Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 3 : 23). In the same passage Eusebius tells a characteristic story about John, a story which he received from Clement of Alexandria. John became a kind of bishop of Asia Minor and was visiting one of his churches near Ephesus. In the congregation he saw a tall and exceptionally fine-looking young man. He turned to the elder in charge of the congregation and said to him: "I commit that young man into your charge and into your care, and I call this congregation to witness that I do so." The elder took the young man into his own house and cared for him and instructed him, and the day came when he was baptized and received into the church. But very soon afterwards he fell in with evil friends and embarked on such a career of crime that he ended up by becoming the leader of a band of murdering and pillaging brigands. Some time afterwards John returned to the congregation. He said to the elder: "Restore to me the trust which I and the Lord committed to you and to the church of which you are in charge." At first the elder did not understand of what John was speaking. "I mean," said John, "that I am asking you for the soul of the young man whom I entrusted to you." "Alas!" said the elder, "he is dead." "Dead?" said John. "He is dead to God," said the elder. "He fell from grace; he was forced to flee from the city for his crimes and now he is a brigand in the mountains." Straightway John went to the mountains. Deliberately he allowed himself to be captured by the robber band. They brought him before the young man who was now the chief of the band and, in his shame, the young man tried to run away from him. John, though an old man, pursued him. "My son," he cried, "are you running away from your father? I am feeble and far advanced in age; have pity on me, my son; fear not; there is yet hope of salvation for you. I will stand for you before the Lord Christ. If need be I will gladly die for you as he died for me. Stop, stay, believe! It is Christ who has sent me to you." The appeal broke the heart of the young man. He stopped, threw away his weapons, and wept. Together he and John came down the mountainside and he was brought back into the church and into the Christian way. There we see the love and the courage of John still in operation.

Eusebius (3 : 28) tells another story of John which he got from the works of Irenaeus. We have seen that one of the leaders of the Gnostic heresy was a man called Cerinthus. "The apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, when he learned that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from his place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. He advised those who were with him to do the same. t us flee,e said, st the bath fall, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."here we have another glimpse of the temper of John. Boanerges was not quite dead.

Cassian tells another famous story about John. One day he was found playing with a tame partridge. A narrower and more rigid brother rebuked him for thus wasting his time, and John answered: "The bow that is always bent will soon cease to shoot straight."

It is Jerome who tells the story of the last words of John. When he was dying, his disciples asked him if he had any last message to leave them. "Little children," he said, "love one another." Again and again he repeated it; and they asked him if that was all he had to say. "It is enough," he said, "for it is the Lordcommand."

Such then is our information about John; and he emerges a figure of fiery temper, of wide ambition, of undoubted courage, and, in the end, of gentle love.

The Beloved Disciple

If we have been following our references closely we will have noticed one thing. All our information about John comes from the first three gospels. It is the astonishing fact that the Fourth Gospel never mentions the apostle John from beginning to end. But it does mention two other people.

First, it speaks of the disciple whom Jesus loved. There are four mentions of him. He was leaning on Jesusreast at the Last Supper (Joh_13:23-25 ); it is into his care that Jesus committed Mary as he died upon his Cross (Joh_19:25-27 ); it was Peter and he whom Mary Magdalene met on her return from the empty tomb on the first Easter morning (Joh_20:2 ); he was present at the last resurrection appearance of Jesus by the lake-side (Joh_21:20 ).

Second, the Fourth Gospel has a kind of character whom we might call the witness. As the Fourth Gospel tells of the spear thrust into the side of Jesus and the issue of the water and the blood, there comes the comment: "He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth--that you also may believe" (Joh_19:35 ). At the end of the gospel comes the statement that it was the beloved disciple who testified of these things "and we know that his testimony is true" (Joh_21:24 ).

Here we are faced with rather a strange thing. In the Fourth Gospel John is never mentioned, but the beloved disciple is and in addition there is a witness of some kind to the whole story. It has never really been doubted in tradition that the beloved disciple is John. A few have tried to identify him with Lazarus, for Jesus is said to have loved Lazarus (Joh_11:3 , Joh_11:5 ), or with the Rich Young Ruler, of whom it is said that Jesus, looking on him, loved him (Mar_10:21 ). But although the gospel never says so in so many words, tradition has always identified the beloved disciple with John, and there is no real need to doubt the identification.

But a very real point arises--suppose John himself actually did the writing of the gospel, would he really be likely to speak of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved? Would he really be likely to pick himself out like this, and, as it were, to say: "I was his favourite; he loved me best of all"? It is surely very unlikely that John would confer such a title on himself. If it was conferred by others, it is a lovely title; if it was conferred by himself, it comes perilously near to an almost incredible self-conceit.

Is there any way then that the gospel can be Johnown eye-witness story, and yet at the same time have been actually written down by someone else?

The Production Of The Church

In our search for the truth we begin by noting one of the outstanding and unique features of the Fourth Gospel. The most remarkable thing about it is the long speeches of Jesus. Often they are whole chapters long, and are entirely unlike the way in which Jesus is portrayed as speaking in the other three gospels. The Fourth Gospel, as we have seen, was written about the year A.D. 100, that is, about seventy years after the crucifixion. Is it possible after these seventy years to look on these speeches as word for word reports of what Jesus said? Or can we explain them in some way that is perhaps even greater than that? We must begin by holding in our minds the fact of the speeches and the question which they inevitably raise.

And we have something to add to that. It so happens that in the writings of the early church we have a whole series of accounts of the way in which the Fourth Gospel came to be written. The earliest is that of Irenaeus who was bishop of Lyons about A.D. 177; and Irenaeus was himself a pupil of Polycarp, who in turn had actually been a pupil of John. There is therefore a direct link between Irenaeus and John. Irenaeus writes:

"John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leant upon his breast,

himself also published the gospel in Ephesus, when he was living

in Asia."

The suggestive thing there is that Irenaeus does not merely say that John wrote the gospel; he says that John published (exedoke) it in Ephesus. The word that Irenaeus uses makes it sound, not like the private publication of some personal memoir, but like the public issue of some almost official document.

The next account is that of Clement who was head of the great school of Alexandria about A.D. 230. He writes:

"Last of all, John perceiving that the bodily facts had been made

plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends, composed a

spiritual gospel."

The important thing here is the phrase being urged by his friends. It begins to become clear that the Fourth Gospel is far more than one manpersonal production and that there is a group, a community, a church behind it. On the same lines, a tenth-century manuscript called the Codex Toletanus, which prefaces the New Testament books with short descriptions, prefaces the Fourth Gospel thus:

The apostle John, whom the Lord Jesus loved most, last of all

wrote this gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against

Cerinthus and other heretics."

Again we have the idea that behind the Fourth Gospel there is the authority of a group and of a church.

We now turn to a very important document, known as the Muratorian Canon. It is so called after a scholar Muratori who discovered it. It is the first list of New Testament books which the church ever issued and was compiled in Rome about A.D. 170. Not only does it list the New Testament books, it also gives short accounts of the origin and nature and contents of each of them. Its account of the way in which the Fourth Gospel came to be written is extremely important and illuminating.

"At the request of his fellow-disciples and of his bishops, John,

one of the disciples, said: úst with me for three days from

this time and whatsoever shall be revealed to each of us, whether

it be favourable to my writing or not, let us relate it to one

another.n the same night it was revealed to Andrew that John

should relate all things, aided by the revision of all."

We cannot accept all that statement, because it is not possible that Andrew, the apostle, was in Ephesus in A.D. 100; but the point is that it is stated as clearly as possible that, while the authority and the mind and the memory behind the Fourth Gospel are that of John, it is clearly and definitely the product, not of one man, but of a group and a community.

Now we can see something of what happened. About the year A.D. 100 there was a group of men in Ephesus whose leader was John. They revered him as a saint and they loved him as a father. He must have been almost a hundred years old. Before he died, they thought most wisely that it would be a great thing if the aged apostle set down his memories of the years when he had been with Jesus. But in the end they did far more than that. We can think of them sitting down and reliving the old days. One would say: "Do you remember how Jesus said ... ?" And John would say: "Yes, and now we know that he meant..."

In other words this group was not only writing down what Jesus said; that would have been a mere feat of memory. They were writing down what Jesus meant; that was the guidance of the Holy Spirit. John had thought about every word that Jesus had said; and he had thought under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was so real to him. W. M. Macgregor has a sermon entitled: "What Jesus becomes to a man who has known him long." That is a perfect description of the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel. A. H. N. Green Armytage puts the thing perfectly in his book John who saw. Mark, he says, suits the missionary with his clear-cut account of the facts of Jesusife; Matthew suits the teacher with his systematic account of the teaching of Jesus; Luke suits the parish minister or priest with his wide sympathy and his picture of Jesus as the friend of all; but John is the gospel of the contemplative.

He goes on to speak of the apparent contrast between Mark and John. "The two gospels are in a sense the same gospel. Only, where Mark saw things plainly, bluntly, literally, John saw them subtly, profoundly, spiritually. We might say that John lit Markpages by the lantern of a lifetimemeditation." Wordsworth defined poetry as "Emotion recollected in tranquillity ". That is a perfect description of the Fourth Gospel. That is why John is unquestionably the greatest of all the gospels. Its aim is, not to give us what Jesus said like a newspaper report, but to give us what Jesus meant. In it the Risen Christ still speaks. John is not so much The Gospel according to St. John; it is rather The Gospel according to the Holy Spirit. It was not John of Ephesus who wrote the Fourth Gospel; it was the Holy Spirit who wrote it through John.

The Penman Of The Gospel

We have one question still to ask. We can be quite sure that the mind and the memory behind the Fourth Gospel is that of John the apostle; but we have also seen that behind it is a witness who was the writer, in the sense that he was the actual penman. Can we find out who he was? We know from what the early church writers tell us that there were actually two Johns in Ephesus at the same time. There was John the apostle, but there was another John, who was known as John the elder.

Papias, who loved to collect all that he could find about the history of the New Testament and the story of Jesus, gives us some very interesting information. He was Bishop of Hierapolis, which is quite near Ephesus, and his dates are from about A.D. 70 to about A.D. 145. That is to say, he was actually a contemporary of John. He writes how he tried to find out "what Andrew said or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord; and what things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say." In Ephesus there was the apostle John, and the elder John; and the elder John was so well-loved a figure that he was actually known as The Elder. He clearly had a unique place in the church. Both Eusebius and Dionysius the Great tell us that even to their own days in Ephesus there were two famous tombs, the one of John the apostle, and the other of John the elder.

Now let us turn to the two little letters, Second John and Third John. The letters come from the same hand as the gospel, and how do they begin? The second letter begins: "The elder unto the elect lady and her children" (2Jo_1:1 ). The third letter begins: "The elder unto the beloved Gaius" (3Jo_1:1 ). Here we have our solution. The actual penman of the letters was John the elder; the mind and memory behind them was the aged John the apostle, the master whom John the elder always described as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

The Precious Gospel

The more we know about the Fourth Gospel the more precious it becomes. For seventy years John had thought of Jesus. Day by day the Holy Spirit had opened out to him the meaning of what Jesus said. So when John was near the century of life and his days were numbered, he and his friends sat down to remember. John the elder held the pen to write for his master, John the apostle; and the last of the apostles set down, not only what he had heard Jesus say, but also what he now knew Jesus had meant. He remembered how Jesus had said: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (Joh_16:12-13 ). There were many things which seventy years ago he had not understood; there were many things which in these seventy years the Spirit of Truth had revealed to him. These things John set down even as the eternal glory was dawning upon him. When we read this gospel let us remember that we are reading the gospel which of all the gospels is most the work of the Holy Spirit, speaking to us of the things which Jesus meant, speaking through the mind and memory of John the apostle and by the pen of John the elder. Behind this gospel is the whole church at Ephesus, the whole company of the saints, the last of the apostles, the Holy Spirit, the Risen Christ himself.

FURTHER READING

John

C. Kingsley Barrett, The Gospel According to Saint John (G)

J. H. Bernahrd, St. John (ICC; G)

E. C. Hoskyns (ed. F. M. Davey), The Fourth Gospel (E)

R. H. Lightfoot, St. JohnGospel: A Commentary (E)

G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (MC; E)

J. N. Saunders (ed. B. A. Mastin), The Gospel According to Saint John (ACB; E)

R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to Saint John (TC; E)

B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to Saint John (E)

The SpeakerCommentary (MmC; G)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text G: Greek Text

Barclay: John 13 (Chapter Introduction)

The Royalty Of Service (Joh_13:1-17)

The Royalty Of Service (Joh_13:1-17 Continued)

The Essential Washing (Joh_13:1-17 Continued)

The Shame Of Disloyalty And The Glory Of Fidelity (Joh_13:18-20)

Love's Last Appeal (Joh_13:21-30)

Love's Last Appeal (Joh_13:21-30 Continued)

The Fourfold Glory (Joh_13:31-32)

The Farewell Command (Joh_13:33-35)

The Faltering Loyalty (Joh_13:36-38)

Constable: John (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer of this Gospel did not identify himself as such in the text. This is true of all the Gospel evangelists. Nevertheless there is evidence within this Gospel as well as in the writings of the church fathers that the writer was the Apostle John.

The internal evidence from the Gospel itself is as follows. In 21:24 the writer of "these things" (i.e., the whole Gospel) was the same person as the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:7). That disciple was one of the seven disciples mentioned in 21:2. He was also the disciple who sat beside Jesus in the upper room when He instituted the Lord's Supper and to whom Peter motioned (13:23-24). This means that he was one of the Twelve since only they were present in the upper room (Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14). The disciple whom Jesus loved was also one of the inner circle of three disciples, namely Peter, James, and John (Mark 5:37-38; 9:2-3; 14:33; John 20:2-10). James died in the early history of the church, probably in the early 40s (Acts 12:2). There is good evidence that whoever wrote this Gospel did so after then. The writer was also not Peter (21:20-24). This evidence points to John as the disciple whom Jesus loved who was also the writer of this Gospel. The writer claimed to have seen Jesus' glory (1:14; cf. 1:1-4), which John did at the Transfiguration. There are several Johns in the New Testament. This one was one of Zebedee's sons who was a fisherman before Jesus called him to leave his nets and follow Him.

"To a certain extent each of the Gospels reflects the personality of its author, but in none of them is there a more distinctive individuality manifested than in John."¹

The external evidence also points to the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons (c. 130-200 A.D.), wrote that he had heard Polycarp (c. 69-155 A.D.), a disciple of John. It was apparently from Polycarp that Irenaeus learned that, "John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia."² Other later church fathers supported this tradition including Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, and Tatian.³ Eusebius (fourth century) also specifically mentioned that Matthew and John among the apostles wrote the Gospels that bear their names.⁴

Some scholars have rejected this seemingly clear evidence and have refused to accept Johannine authorship. This criticism comes from those who hold a lower view of Scripture generally. Answering their objections lies outside the purpose of these notes.⁵

Place of Writing

Eusebius wrote that John ministered to the church in Ephesus, which Paul had founded (Acts 19:1-20), for many years.⁶ The Isle of Patmos where John spent some time in exile is close to Ephesus (cf. Rev. 1:9-11). As previously noted, Eusebius wrote that John composed his Gospel when he was at Ephesus.⁷ During the first century, that city was one of the largest centers of Christian activity in the Gentile world.⁸

Date

A few scholars believe John could have written this book as early as 45 A.D., the date when Saul of Tarsus' persecutions drove many Christians out of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 8:1-4).⁹ There are two main problems with such an early date. First, John seems to have assumed that the Synoptic Gospels were available to the Christian public. There is some doubt about this since it assumes an assumption, but most scholars believe, on the basis of content, that John selected his material to supplement material in the Synoptics. This would put the fourth Gospel later than the Synoptics. Second, according to early church tradition the Apostle John lived long into the first century. This would make a later date possible even though it does not prove a later date. Some students of the book believe that John 21:18-22 implies that Peter would die before John did, and Peter died about 67 A.D. In general, most authorities reject a date this early for these and other reasons.

Some conservatives date the Gospel slightly before 70 A.D. because John described Palestine and Jerusalem as they were before the Roman destruction (cf. 5:2).¹⁰ This may be a weak argument since John frequently used the Greek present tense to describe things in the past.¹¹ Some who hold this date note the absence of any reference to Jerusalem's destruction in John. However there could have been many reasons John chose not to mention the destruction of Jerusalem if he wrote after that event. A date of writing before the destruction of Jerusalem is also a minority opinion among scholars.

Many conservative scholars believe that John wrote his Gospel between 85 and 95 A.D.¹² Early church tradition was that John wrote it when he was an older man. Moreover even the early Christians regarded this as the fourth Gospel and believed that John wrote it after the Synoptics. It is not clear if John had access to the Synoptic Gospels. He did not quote from any of them. However, his choice of material for his own Gospel suggests that he probably read them and chose to include other material from Jesus' ministry in his account to supplement them.¹³

The latest possible date would be about 100 A.D. Some liberal scholars date this Gospel in the second century. The Egerton papyrus that dates from early in the second century contains unmistakable allusions to John's Gospel.¹⁴ This seems to rule out a second century date.

It seems impossible to identify the date of writing very exactly, as evidenced by the difference of opinion that exists between excellent conservative scholars. A date sometime between 65 and 95 A.D. is probable.

Characteristic features and purpose

John's presentation of Jesus in his Gospel has been a problem to many modern students of the New Testament. Some regard it as the greatest problem in current New Testament studies.¹⁵ Compared to the Synoptics that present Jesus as a historical figure, John stressed the deity of Jesus. Obviously the Synoptics present Jesus as divine also, but the emphasis in the fourth Gospel is more strongly on Jesus' full deity. This emphasis runs from the beginning, with the Word becoming flesh (1:1, 14), to the end, were Thomas confessed Jesus as his Lord and God (20:28). John's purpose statement (20:30-31) explains why he stressed Jesus' deity. It was so his readers would believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and thereby have eternal life.

The key word in the book is the verb "believe" (Gr. pisteuo), which appears 98 times. The noun form of the word (Gr. pistis, "faith") does not occur at all. This phenomenon shows that John wanted to stress the importance of active vital trust in Jesus. Other key words are witness, love, abide, the Counselor (i.e., the Holy Spirit), light, life, darkness, Word, glorify, true, and real.¹⁶ These words identify important themes in the Gospel.

John's unique purpose accounted for his selection of material, as was true of every biblical writer. He omitted Jesus' genealogy, birth, baptism, temptation, exorcizing demons, parables, transfiguration, institution of the Lord's Supper, agony in Gethsemane, and ascension. He focused on Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, the Jewish feasts, Jesus' private conversations with individuals, and His preparation of His disciples (chs. 13-17). John selected seven signs or miracles that demonstrate that Jesus was the divine Messiah (chs. 2-12). He also recorded the discourses that Jesus gave following these signs that explained their significance. Moreover he stressed Jesus' claims that occur in the unique "I am" statements (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5).

About 93% of the material in John's Gospel does not appear in the Synoptics.¹⁷ This fact indicates the uniqueness of this Gospel compared with the other three and explains why they bear the title "Synoptic" and John does not. All four Gospels are quite similar, though each of them has its own distinctive features. John, on the other hand, is considerably different from the others. Specifically it stresses Jesus' deity stronger than the others do. It is, I believe, impossible to determine for certain whether or not John used or even knew of the Synoptic Gospels.¹⁸ I suspect that he did.

Another difference between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel is the writers' view of eschatology. They all share the same basic view, namely that the Jews' rejection of their Messiah resulted in the postponement of the messianic kingdom. However the Synoptic writers stressed the future aspects of eschatology more than John who put more emphasis on the present or realized aspects of eschatology. This is not to say that John presented the kingdom as having begun during Jesus' first advent. He did not. He did stress, however, the aspects of kingdom life that Christians currently enjoy as benefits of the new covenant, which Jesus ratified by His death. These include especially the Holy Spirit's ministries of indwelling and illuminating the believer. Such a shift in emphasis is understandable if John wrote later than the other Gospel evangelists. By then it was clear that God had postponed the messianic kingdom, and believers' interest was more on life in the church than it was on life in the messianic kingdom (cf. chs. 13-17).

"It is . . . quite possible that one of John's aims was to combat false teaching of a docetic type. The Docetists held that the Christ never became incarnate; everything was seeming.'¹⁹ That the docetic heresy did not appear in the first century seems clear, but certain elements that later were to be embodied in this heresy seem to have been quite early."²⁰

"We have suggested that the Fourth Gospel was addressed to two groups within the Johannine community, each of which represented an extreme interpretation of the nature of Jesus: one which did not accept him as God, and the other which did not accept him as man (see the introduction, xxiii; also Smalley, John, 145-48). The perfectly balanced christology of the Fourth Gospel was intended, we believe, to provide a resolution of this theological crisis: to remind the ex-Jewish members of the group, with their strong emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, that the Christ was divine; and to insist, for the benefit of the ex-pagan members (with their docetic outlook), that Jesus was truly human."²¹

The context of Jesus' ministry accounts for the strong Jewish flavor that marks all four Gospels. Yet John's Gospel is more theological and cosmopolitan than the others.

"It has . . . a wider appeal to growing Christian experience and to an enlarging Gentile constituency than the others.

"The Synoptics present him for a generation in process of being evangelized; John presents him as the Lord of the maturing and questioning believer."²²

As a piece of literature, John's Gospel has a symphonic structure.

"A symphony is a musical composition having several movements related in subject, but varying in form and execution. It usually begins with a dominant theme, into which variations are introduced at intervals. The variations seem to be developed independently, but as the music is played, they modulate into each other until finally all are brought to a climax. The apparent disunity is really part of a design which is not evident at first, but which appears in the progress of the composition."²³

Tasker described the fourth Gospel as "the simplest and yet the most profound of the Christian Gospels."²⁴

Original recipients

The preceding quotation implies that John wrote primarily for Christians. This implication may seem to be contrary to John's stated purpose (20:30-31). Probably John wrote both to convince unbelievers that Jesus was the Son of God and to give Christians who faced persecution confidence in their Savior. The word "believe" in 20:31 may be in the present tense implying that Christian readers should continue believing. It could be in the aorist tense suggesting that pagan readers should believe initially. An evangelistic purpose does not exclude an edification purpose. Indeed all 66 books of the Bible have edifying value for God's people (2 Tim. 3:16-17). John's purpose for unbelievers is that they might obtain eternal life, and his purpose for believers is that we might experience abundant eternal life (10:10).

John explained Jewish customs, translated Jewish names, and located Palestinian sites. These facts suggest that he was writing for Gentile readers outside Palestine. Furthermore the prologue seems addressed to readers who thought in Greek categories. John's inclusion of the Greeks who showed interest in seeing Jesus (12:20-22) may also suggest that he wrote with them in view. Because of John's general purposes it seems best to conclude that the original readers were primarily Gentile Christians and Gentile unbelievers.²⁵

"By the use of personal reminiscences interpreted in the light of a long life of devotion to Christ and by numerous episodes that generally had not been used in the Gospel tradition, whether written or oral, John created a new and different approach to understanding Jesus' person. John's readers were primarily second-generation Christians he was familiar with and to whom he seemed patriarchal."²⁶

The writer did not indicate the geographical location of the original recipients of his Gospel. This was undoubtedly intentional since the message of John has universal appeal. Perhaps its first readers lived in the Roman province of Asia the capital of which was Ephesus.

Summary of Gospel Introductions
Gospel	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Date	40-70probably 40s	63-70probably 60s	57-59probably 50s	65-95probably 90s
Origin	Palestine	Rome	Caesarea	Ephesus
Audience	Jews	Romans	Greeks	Gentiles
Emphasis	King	Servant	Man	God

Message²⁷

In one sense the Gospel of John is more profound than the Synoptics. It is the most difficult Gospel for most expositors to preach and to teach for reasons that will become evident as we study it. In another sense, however, the fourth Gospel is the easiest Gospel to understand. Leon Morris wrote that it is a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim.²⁸ It is both simple and profound. It clarifies some things that the Synoptics leave as mysteries.

What are these mysteries? Matthew presents Jesus as the King, but it does not articulate the reason for Jesus' great authority. John does. Mark presents Jesus as the Servant, but it does not account for His depth of consecration to God. John does. Luke presents Jesus as the perfect Man, but it does not explain His uniqueness from the rest of humankind. John does.

The Gospel of John reveals answers to the mysteries about Jesus that the Synoptics leave hidden. It is therefore an apocalypse, an unveiling similar to the Book of Revelation in this respect. The Book of Revelation is the climax of biblical Christology. The Gospel of John plays that part among the Gospels. It is a revelation of the person of Jesus Christ more than any of the others. John told us that it would be this in his prologue (1:1-18).

The statement of the message of this Gospel occurs in 1:18: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." John claimed that Jesus was the explanation of God the Father. This Gospel presents Jesus as the One who manifested God to humankind. This book then stresses the revelation of the truth about God.

Mankind has constantly sought to represent God in some way. We want to know what God is like. Ideas about God that do not come from the revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ are idolatrous. They create a false view of God. Typically human beings without divine revelation have imagined God as being an immense version of themselves, a projection of human personality into cosmic proportions. God's revelation of Himself, however, involved the limitation of Himself to humanity, the exact opposite approach. This is what God did in the Incarnation. God's revelations are often the exact opposite of what one would expect.

John presented Jesus as the Son of God. He wanted his readers to view Jesus and to see God. In the tears of Jesus, we should see what causes God sorrow. In the compassion of Jesus, we should see how God cares for His own. In the anger of Jesus, we should see what God hates.

What do we learn about God from Jesus in John? The prologue gives us the essential answer, and the body of the book explains this answer with various illustrations from Jesus' ministry. The prologue tells us that Jesus has manifested the glory of God by revealing two things about Him: His grace and His truth (1:14). All that Jesus revealed about God that this Gospel narrates is contractible into these two words. Notice first the revelation of grace in this Gospel.

The Gospel of John presents God as a gracious person. Behind His gracious dealings lies a heart of love. There are probably hundreds of evidences of God's love resulting in gracious action in this book. Let us note just the evidence of these qualities in the seven signs that John chose to record.

The miracle of changing water into wine (ch. 2) shows God's concern for marital joy. The healing of the official's son (ch. 4) shows God's desire that people experience family unity. The healing of the paralytic (ch. 5) shows God's grace in providing physical restoration. The feeding of the 5000 (ch. 6) shows God's love in providing material needs. The miracle of Jesus walking on the water (ch. 6) shows God's desire that people enjoy supernatural peace. The healing of the man born blind (ch. 9) illustrates God's desire that we have true understanding. The raising of Lazarus (ch. 11) shows God's grace in providing new life. All these miracles are revelations of God's love manifesting itself in gracious behavior toward us in our various needs. These are only the most obvious manifestations of God's grace in this book.

This Gospel also reveals that God is a God of truth. Another one of God's attributes that we see revealed in this Gospel lies behind the truth that we see revealed in this Gospel. That attribute is His holiness. The figure that John used to describe God's holiness is light. Light is a common figure for God's holiness in the Old Testament too. The principle of God's holiness governs the passion of His love.

Jesus' great works in John reveal God's love and His great words reveal God's truth. Let us select seven of the great "I am" claims of Jesus as illustrations of the various aspects of the truth that Jesus revealed about God. All these claims point to God as the source and to Jesus as the mediator of things having to do with truth.

The bread of life claim (ch. 6) points to God as the source of true sustenance. The light of the world claim (ch. 9) points to God as the source of true illumination. The door claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true security. The good shepherd claim (ch. 10) points to God as the source of true care. The resurrection and the life claim (ch. 11) points to God as the source of true life. The way, the truth, and the life claim (ch. 14) points to God as the source of true authority. The vine claim (ch. 15) points to God as the source of true fruitfulness. All of these claims pointed directly to Jesus as the mediator, but they also pointed beyond Him to God the Father. They were revelations of the truth concerning God.

These are all further revelations of the character of God introduced first in Exodus 3 where God began to reveal Himself as "I am." The Law of Moses was an initial revelation about God. The revelation that Jesus Christ brought was a further, fuller, and final revelation of the grace and truth that characterize God (1:17). These revelations find their most comprehensive expression in the fourth Gospel.

What are the implications of the revelation in this Gospel? First, such a revelation calls for worship.

In the Old Testament, God revealed Himself and dwelt among His people through the tabernacle. In the Incarnation, God revealed Himself and dwelt among His people through His Son (1:14). The tabernacle was the place where God revealed Himself and around which His people congregated to worship Him in response. The Son of God is the person through whom God has now given the greatest and fullest revelation of Himself and around whom we now bow in worship.

Second, such a revelation calls for service. Under the old Mosaic economy, worship prepared God's people to serve Him. Their service consisted of carrying out His mission for them in the world. The revelation of God should always result in service as well as worship (cf. Isa. 6:1-8). When we learn who God is as we study this Gospel, our reaction should not only be worship but service. This is true of the church as a whole and of every individual believer in it. Thomas' ascription of worship (20:28) was only preliminary to his fulfilling God's mission for him (20:21-23). Worship should never be an end in itself. Even in heaven we will serve as well as worship God (Rev. 22:3).

As recipients of this revelation of God, our lives too should be notable for grace and truth. These qualities should not only be the themes of our worship. They should also be the trademarks of our service. Truth and holiness should mark our words and motives. Graciousness should stamp our works as we deal with people. If they do not, we have not yet comprehended the revelation of God that Jesus came to bring to His own. Sloppy graciousness jeopardizes truthfulness, and rigid truthfulness endangers graciousness. Jesus illustrated the balance.

This Gospel has a strong appeal to the unsaved as well. John wrote it specifically to bring the light of revelation about Jesus' true identity to those who sit in spiritual darkness (20:30-31). The knowledge of who Jesus really is is the key to the knowledge of who God really is. Therefore our service must not only bear the marks of certain characteristics, namely grace and truth, but it must also communicate a specific content: who Jesus is. People need to consider who Jesus is. There is no better way for them to do this than by reading this Gospel. Remember the stated purpose of this book (20:30-31). Use it as an evangelistic tool.

Constable: John (Outline)

Outline

I. Prologue 1:1-18

A. The preincarnate Word 1:1-5

B. The witness of John the Baptist 1:6-8

C. The appearance of the Light 1:9-13

D. The incarnation of the Word 1:14-18

II. Jesus' public ministry 1:19-12:50

A. The prelude to Jesus' public ministry 1:19-51

1. John the Baptist's veiled testimony to Jesus 1:19-28

2. John the Baptist's open identification of Jesus 1:29-34

3. The response to John the Baptist's witness 1:35-42

4. The witness of Philip and Andrew 1:43-51

B. Jesus' early Galilean ministry 2:1-12

1. The first sign: changing water to wine 2:1-11

2. Jesus' initial stay in Capernaum 2:12

C. Jesus' first visit to Jerusalem 2:13-3:36

1. The first cleansing of the temple 2:13-22

2. Initial response to Jesus in Jerusalem 2:23-25

3. Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus 3:1-21

4. John the Baptist's reaction to Jesus' ministry 3:22-30

5. The explanation of Jesus' preeminence 3:31-36

D. Jesus' ministry in Samaria 4:1-42

1. The interview with the Samaritan woman 4:1-26

2. Jesus' explanation of evangelistic ministry 4:27-38

3. The response to Jesus in Samaria 4:39-42

E. Jesus' resumption of His Galilean ministry 4:43-54

1. Jesus' return to Galilee 4:43-45

2. The second sign: healing the official's son 4:46-54

F. Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem ch. 5

1. The third sign: healing the paralytic 5:1-9

2. The antagonism of the Jewish authorities 5:10-18

3. The Son's equality with the Father 5:19-29

4. The Father's witness to the Son 5:30-47

G. Jesus' later Galilean ministry 6:1-7:9

1. The fourth sign: feeding the 5,000 6:1-15

2. The fifth sign: walking on the water 6:16-21

3. The bread of life discourse 6:22-59

4. The responses to the bread of life discourse 6:60-7:9

H. Jesus' third visit to Jerusalem 7:10-10:42

1. The controversy surrounding Jesus 7:10-13

2. Jesus' ministry at the feast of Tabernacles 7:14-44

3. The unbelief of the Jewish leaders 7:45-52

[4. The woman caught in adultery 7:53-8:11]

5. The light of the world discourse 8:12-59

6. The sixth sign: healing a man born blind ch. 9

7. The good shepherd discourse 10:1-21

8. The confrontation at the feast of Dedication 10:22-42

I. The conclusion of Jesus' public ministry chs. 11-12

1. The seventh sign: raising Lazarus 11:1-44

2. The responses to the raising of Lazarus 11:45-57

3. Mary's anointing of Jesus 12:1-8

4. The official antagonism toward Lazarus 12:9-11

5. Jesus' triumphal entry 12:12-19

6. Jesus' announcement of His death 12:20-36

7. The unbelief of Israel 12:37-50

III. Jesus' private ministry chs. 13-17

A. The Last Supper 13:1-30

1. Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet 13:1-20

2. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 13:21-30

B. The Upper Room Discourse 13:31-16:33

1. The new commandment 13:31-35

2. Peter's profession of loyalty 13:36-38

3. Jesus' comforting revelation in view of His departure 14:1-24

4. The promise of future understanding 14:25-31

5. The importance of abiding in Jesus 15:1-16

6. The warning about opposition from the world 15:17-27

7. The clarification of the future 16:1-24

8. The clarification of Jesus' destination 16:25-33

C. Jesus' high priestly prayer ch. 17

1. Jesus' requests for Himself 17:1-5

2. Jesus' requests for the Eleven 17:6-19

3. Jesus' requests for future believers 17:20-26

IV. Jesus' passion ministry chs. 18-20

A. Jesus' presentation of Himself to His enemies 18:1-11

B. Jesus' religious trial 18:12-27

1. The arrest of Jesus and the identification of the high priests 18:12-14

2. The entrance of two disciples into the high priests' courtyard and Peter's first denial 18:15-18

3. Annas' interrogation of Jesus 18:19-24

4. Peter's second and third denials of Jesus 18:25-27

C. Jesus' civil trial 18:28-19:16

1. The Jews' charge against Jesus 18:28-32

2. The question of Jesus' kingship 18:33-38a

3. The Jews' request for Barabbas 18:38b-40

4. The sentencing of Jesus 19:1-16

D. Jesus' crucifixion 19:17-30

1. Jesus' journey to Golgotha 19:17

2. The men crucified with Jesus 19:18

3. The inscription over Jesus' cross 19:19-22

4. The distribution of Jesus' garments 19:23-24

5. Jesus' provision for His mother 19:25-27

6. The death of Jesus 19:28-30

E. The treatment of Jesus' body 19:31-42

1. The removal of Jesus' body from the cross 19:31-37

2. The burial of Jesus 19:38-42

F. Jesus' resurrection 20:1-29

1. The discovery of Peter and John 20:1-9

2. The discovery of Mary Magdalene 20:10-18

3. The appearance to the Eleven minus Thomas on Easter evening 20:19-23

4. The transformed faith of Thomas 20:24-29

G. The purpose of this Gospel 20:30-31

V. Epilogue ch. 21

A. Jesus' appearance to seven disciples in Galilee 21:1-14

B. Jesus' teachings about motivation for service 21:15-23

C. The writer's postscript 21:24-25

Constable: John

John

Bibliography

Allen, Ronald B. "Affirming Right-of-Way on Ancient Paths." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):3-11.

Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 35 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873.

Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of John. 2 vols. The Daily Study Bible series. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1955.

Barrett, C. K. Essays on John. London: SPCK, 1982.

_____. The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes onthe Greek Text. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1978.

Bauckham, Richard. "Jesus' Demonstration in the Temple." In Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, pp. 72-89. Edited by Barnabas Lindars. London: SPCK, 1988.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):171-84.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. Word Bible Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Bernard, J. C. The Gospel According to St. John. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.

Blum, Edwin A. "John." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 267-348. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Bowman, John. "Samaritan Studies." Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 40:2 (March 1958):298-327.

Bray, Gerald. "The Double Procession of the Holy Spirit in Evangelical Theology Today: Do We Still Need It?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):415-26.

Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.

Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation and Notes. Anchor Bible series. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966-71.

Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. Translated by T. H. C. Parker. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959-61.

Carson, Donald A. "Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978):411-29.

_____. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1981.

_____. "The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7-11." Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):547-66.

_____. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

_____. "Matthew." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Coggins, R. J. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Colwell, E. C. "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):12-21.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Culpepper, R. Alan. "The Pivot of John's Prologue." New Testament Studies 27 (1981):1-31.

Dahms, John V. "The Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):351-64.

Dana, H. E., and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan Co., 1927.

Daube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.

Derickson, Gary W. "Viticulture and John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):34-52.

_____. "Viticulture's Contribution to the Interpretation of John 15:1-6." Paper presented at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Illinois, 19 November 1994.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. "Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990):44-53.

_____. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

_____. "Note on John 21, 24." Journal of Theological Studies NS4 (1953):212-13.

Dods, Marcus. The Gospel of St. John. Expositer Bible series. 2 vols. 6th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Ark, 1984.

Duke, Paul D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Duncan, Dan. "Avodah Zarah, Makkoth, and Kerithoth." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):52-54.

Dvorak, James D. "The Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):201-13.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. New York: Longmans, Green, 1912.

Emerton, John A. "Some New Testament Notes." Journal of Theological Studies 11NS (1960):329-36.

Enns, Paul. "The Upper Room Discourse: The Consummation of Christ's Instruction." ThD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of John. New York: "Our Hope," 1925.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.

Gianotti, Charles R. "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):38-51.

Godet, F. Commentary on the Gospel of John, with a Critical Introduction. 2 vols. Translated by M. D. Cusin. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887.

Goodenough, Edwin R. "John: A Primitive Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 64 (1945): Part 2:145-82.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gundry, Robert H. "In my Father's House are many Monai' (John 14 2)." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58 (1967):68-72.

Haas, N. "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar." Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970):38-59.

Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Edited by Robert W. Funk and Ulrich Busse. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Harris, Gregory H. "Satan's Work as a Deceiver." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June 1999):190-202.

Harris, W. Hall. "A Theology of John's Writings." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 167-242. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Gospel According to John." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1071-1122. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962

Hart, H. St. J. "The Crown of Thorns in John 19, 2-5." Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1952):66-75.

Hendriksen, W. Exposition of the Gospel According to John. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-54.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, and Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Hengstenberg, E. W. Commentary on the Gospel of John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865-71.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Higgins, A. J. B. "The Origins of the Eucharist." New Testament Studies 1 (1954-55):200-9.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Angel at Bethesda--John 5:4." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:541 (January-March 1979):25-39.

_____. "Coming to the Light--John 3:20-21." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):314-22.

_____. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):339-48.

_____. "Grace after Grace--John 1:16." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March 1978):34-45.

_____. "Rivers of Living Water--John 7:37-39." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):239-48.

_____. "Those Who Have Done Good--John 5:28-29." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542 (April-June 1979):158-66.

_____. "Untrustworthy Believers--John 2:23-25." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):139-52.

_____. "Water and Spirit--John 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-20.

_____. "Water and Wind--John 3:5." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):206-20.

_____. "The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): The Text." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:544 (October-December 1979):318-32.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hoskyns, Edwin Clement. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. N. Davey. London: Faber and Faber, 1940.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1982 ed. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; et al. S.v. "Gabbatha," by D. J. Wieand.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 3rd ed. Revised. Translated by Norman Perrin. London: SCM, 1966.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnston, George. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Vol. 12 in the Society for New Testament Studies Monograph series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kysar, Robert. John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament series. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

Lacomara, Aelred. "Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31-16:33)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974):65-84.

Lancaster, Jerry R., and Overstreet, R. Larry. "Jesus' Celebration of Hanukkah in John 10." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):318-33.

Laney, J. Carl. "Abiding Is Believing: The Analogy of the Vine in John 15:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:581 (January-March 1989):55-66.

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 25 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1865-80; reprint ed., 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d. Vol. 9: The Gospel According to John, by J. P. Lange. Translated, revised, enlarged, and edited by Philip Schaff.

Lea, Thomas D. "The Reliability of History in John's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):387-402.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. New ed. Revised by H. S. Jones and R. Mackenzie. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940.

Lightfoot, J. B. Biblical Essays. London: Macmillan, 1893.

Lightfoot, R. H. St. John's Gospel: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. New Century Bible series. London: Oliphants, 1972.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Macdonald, John. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: SCM, 1964.

Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Abingdon Press, 1979.

Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

McCoy, Brad. "Obedience Is Necessary to Receive Eternal Life." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:5 (September-October 1994):1, 3.

McKay, Kenneth L. "Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15-17." Novum Testamentum 27 (1985):319-33.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Mitchell, John G. An Everlasting Love: A Devotional Study of the Gospel of John. Portland, Or.: Multnomah Press, 1982.

Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to John. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

_____. The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Murray, John. Redemption--Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

Neirynck, Frans. Evangelica: Gospel Studies--Etudes d'Evangile. Collected Essays. Edited by F. van Segbroeck. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982; reprint ed. Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1987.

Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel. 1929. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 1968.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Patrick, Johnstone G. "The Promise of the Paraclete." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-December 1970):333-45.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Pink, Arthur W. Exposition of the Gospel of John. Swengel, Pa.: I. C. Herendeen, 1945; 3 vols. in 1 reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968.

Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek series. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.

Pryor, John W. "John 4:44 and the Patris of Jesus." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987):254-63.

Pyne, Robert A. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

Reynolds, Edwin E. "The Role of Misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9:1-2 (1998):150-59.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 3rd ed. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919.

Sanders, J. N. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. Edited and compiled by B. A. Mastin. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968.

Saucy, Mark R. "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):281-307.

Sava, A. F. "The Wound in the Side of Christ." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19 (1957):343-46.

Shepard, J. W. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

_____. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978.

Smith, David. "Jesus and the Pharisees in Socio-Anthropological Perspective." Trinity Journal 6NS:2 (Autumn 1985):151-56.

Staley, Jeff. "The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48:2 (April 1986):241-63.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. Jesus and His Story. Translated by D. M. Barton. London: SCM Press, 1960.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times." Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11.

Strachen, R. H. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment. 3rd ed. London: SCM Press, 1941.

Tacitus. The Histories and the Annals. 4 vols. With an English translation by John Jackson. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, and London: William Heinemann, 1962-63.

Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.

Tenney, Merrill C. "The Author's Testimony to Himself." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September 1963):214-23.

_____. "The Imagery of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):13-21.

_____. "John." In John--Acts. Vol. 9 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. John: The Gospel of Belief. 1948. Rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954.

_____. "The Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):300-8.

_____. "The Symphonic Structure of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:478 (April-June 1963):117-25.

_____. "Topics from the Gospel of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):37-46; 526 (April-June 1975):145-60; 527 (July-September 1975):229-41; 528 (October-December 1975):343-57.

Thatcher, Tom. "Jesus, Judas, and Peter: Character by Contrast in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):435-48.

_____. "A New Look at Asides in the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):428-39.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittle. S.v. elencho, by F. Büchsel.

_____. S.v., lithos, by Joachim Jeremias.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "The Plan of the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):313-23.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Date of the Crucifixion According to the Fourth Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature 50:4 (1931):229-41.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Significance of the First Sign in John's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:533 (January-March 1977):45-51.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament. New Edition. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1915.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

Westcott, B. F. The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and Notes. London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1958.

_____. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture Press, Victor Books, 1989.

Wilkinson, John. Jerusalem as Jesus knew it: Archaeology as Evidence. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Witmer, John A. "Did Jesus Claim to Be God?" Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):147-56.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph Smith. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Jacob's Well," by R. L. Alden.

_____. S.v. "Spikenard," by W. E. Shewell-Cooper.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-2@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-3@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p43joh-4@

Haydock: John (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.

INTRODUCTION

St. John, the evangelist, a native of Bathsaida, in Galilee, was the son of Zebedee and Salome. He was by profession a fisherman. Our Lord gave to John, and to James, his brother, the surname of Boanerges, or, sons of thunder; most probably for their great zeal, and for their soliciting permission to call fire from heaven to destroy the city of the Samaritans, who refused to receive their Master. St. John is supposed to have been called to the apostleship younger than any of the other apostles, not being more than twenty-five or twenty-six years old. The Fathers teach that he never married. Our Lord had for him a particular regard, of which he gave the most marked proofs at the moment of his expiring on the cross, by intrusting to his care his virgin Mother. He is the only one of the apostles that did not leave his divine Master in his passion and death. In the reign of Domitian, he was conveyed to Rome, and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, from which he came out unhurt. He was afterwards banished to the island of Patmos, where he wrote his book of Revelations; and, according to some, his Gospel. Tota antiquitas in eo abunde consentit, quod Domitianus exilii Joannis auctor fuerit. (Lampe. Proleg. lib. i. cap. 4.) --- In his gospel, St. John omits very many leading facts and circumstances mentioned by the other three evangelists, supposing his readers sufficiently instructed in points which his silence approved. It is universally agreed, that St. John had seen and approved of the other three gospels. (St. Hier. [St. Jerome,] de vir. illust. Eusebius, lib. iii, chap. 24.) --- St. Luke, says a learned author, seems to have had more learning than any other of the evangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education. --- St. Denis, of Alexandria, found in the gospel of St. John, elegance and precision of language, not only in the choice and arrangement of expressions, but also in his mode of reasoning and construction. We find here, says this saint, nothing barbarous and improper, nothing even low and vulgar; insomuch, that God not only seems to have given him light and knowledge, but also the means of well clothing his conceptions. (Dion. Alex. [Denis of Alexandria] apud Euseb. lib. vii, chap. 25.) --- Our critics do not join with St. Denis. They generally conceive St. John, with respect to language, as the least correct of the writers of the New Testament. His style argues a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education: but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths, by the supernatural lights, by the depth of the mysteries, by the superexcellency of the matter, by the solidity of his thoughts, and importance of his instructions. The Holy Ghost, who made choice of him, and filled him with infused wisdom, is much above human philosophy and the art of rhetoric. He possesses, in a most sovereign degree, the talent of carrying light and conviction to the mind, and warmth to the heart. He instructs, convinces, and persuades, without the aid of art or eloquence. --- St. John is properly compared to the eagle, because in his first flight he ascends above all sublunary objects, and does not stop till he meets the throne of the Almighty. He is so sententious, says St. Ambrose, that he gives us as many mysteries as words. (De Sacram. lib. iii, chap. 2) --- From Patmos our saint returned to Ephesus, where he died. (Euseb. lib. iii. hist. eccles.) --- It is said that the original gospel was preserved in the church of Ephesus till the seventh age [century], at least till the fourth; for St. Peter, of Alexandria, cites it. See Chron. Alex. and manuscript fragment. de paschate apud Petav. et Usher. --- Besides the gospel, we have of St. John three epistles and the Book of Revelations; and though other productions have been palmed on the world under the name of our evangelist, the Catholic Church only approves of those above specified. Ancient Fathers have given him the name of the Theologian: a title his gospel, and particularly the first chapter, deserves. Polycratus, bishop of Ephesus, tells us that St. John carried on his forehead a plate of gold, as priest of Jesus Christ, to honour the priesthood of the new law, in imitation of the high priests of the Jews. (Polycr. apud Euseb. liv. v, chap. 24.) --- This gospel was written in Greek, about the end of the first hundred years from Christ's nativity, at the request of the bishops of the Lesser Asia [Asia Minor], against the Cerinthians and the Ebionites, and those heretics, or Antichrists, as St. John calls them, (1 John iv. 3.) who pretended that Jesus was a mere man, who had no being or existence before he was born of Joseph and Mary. The blasphemies of these heretics had divers abettors in the first three ages [centuries], as Carpocrates, Artemon, the two Theodotus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, and some others; on whom, see St. Irenæus, St. Epiphanius, St. Augustine, &c. To these succeeded, in the beginning of the fourth century, Arius, of Alexandria, and the different branches of the blasphemous Arian sect. They allowed that Jesus Christ had a being before he was born of Mary; that he was made and created before all other creatures, and was more perfect than any of them; but still that he was no more than a creature: that he had a beginning, and that there was a time when he was not: that he was not properly God, or the God, not the same God, nor had the same substance and nature, with the eternal Father and Creator of all things. This heresy was condemned by the Church in the first General Council, at Nice, ann. 325. --- After the Arians rose up the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost; and afterwards the Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. In every age pride and ignorance have produced some heresies; for, as the Apostle says, (1 Corinthians xi. 19.) there must be heresies. Towards the beginning of the sixteenth age [century] Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, &c. set themselves up for reformers, even of that general and Catholic faith which they found every where taught, and believed in all Christian Churches. Luther owns that he was then alone, the only one of his communion, (if so it may be called); yet none of these called in question the mysteries of the Trinity, or of the Incarnation. --- But not many years after, came the blasphemous sect of the Socinians, so called from Lælius and Faustus Socini. These, and their followers, renewed the condemned errors of the Arians. We scarce find any thing new in the systems of these men, who would pass for somebody, like Theodas, Acts v. 36.; or who, like Simon, the magician, and first heretic, would be looked upon as great men, and great wits, by daring to be free-thinkers, and thereby bold blasphemers. --- To do justice to Calvin, he did not think these Socinians fit to live in any Christian society: and therefore he got Michael Servetus burnt alive at Geneva, ann. 1553; and Valentinus Gentilis, one of the same sect, was beheaded at Berne, ann. 1565. I must needs say, it seems an easier matter to excuse the warm sharp zeal of Calvin, and his Swiss brethren, in persecuting to death these Socinians with sword and faggot, than to shew with what justice and equity these men could be put to death, who followed the very same principle, and the only rule of faith; i.e. Scriptures expounded by every man's private reason, or private spirit; which the pretended Reformers, all of them, maintain with as much warmth as ever, to the very day. --- Heretics in all ages have wrested the sense of the Scriptures, to make them seem to favour their errors: and by what we see so frequently happen, it is no hard matter for men who have but a moderate share of wit and sophistry, by their licentious fancies and arbitrary expositions, to turn, change, and pervert Scripture texts, and to transform almost any thing into any thing, says Dr. Hammond, on the second chapter of St. John's Revelation. But I need not fear to say, this never appeared so visibly as in these last two hundred years; the truth of which no one can doubt, who reads the History of the Variations, written by the learned bishop of Meaux. --- These late Reformers seem to make a great part of their religion consist in reading, or having at least the Bible in their mother-tongue. The number of translations into vulgar languages, with many considerable differences, is strangely multiplied. Every one rashly claims a right to expound them according to his private judgment, or his private spirit. And what is the consequence of this; but that as men's judgments and their private interpretations are different, so in a great measure are the articles of their creed and belief? --- The Scriptures, in which are contained the revealed mysteries of divine faith, are, without all doubt, the most excellent of all writings: these divers volumes, written by men inspired from God, contained not the words of men, but the word of God, which can save our souls: (1 Thessalonians ii. 13. and James i. 21.) but then they ought to be read, even by the learned, with the spirit of humility; with a fear of mistaking the true sense, as so many have done; with a due submission to the Catholic Church, which Christ himself commanded us to hear and obey. This we might learn from the Scripture itself. The apostle told the Corinthians, that even in those days there were many who corrupted and adulterated the word of God. (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) St. Peter gives us this admonition: that in the Epistles of St. Paul, are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. --- It was merely to prevent and remedy this abuse of the best of books, that it was judged necessary to forbid the ignorant to read the Scriptures in vulgar languages, without the advice and permission of their pastors and spiritual guides, whom Christ appointed to govern his Church. (Acts xx. 28.) The learned University of Paris, 1525, at that time, and in those circumstances, judged the said prohibition necessary: and whosoever hath had any discourses with persons of different religions and persuasions in our kingdom, especially with Anabaptists, Quakers, and such as pretend to expound the Scriptures, either by their private reason or by the private spirit, will, I am confident, be fully convinced that the just motives of the said prohibition subsist to this very day. Ignorant men and women turn Scripture texts to the errors of their private sects, and wrest them to their own perdition; as the very best of remedies prove pernicious and fatal to those who know not their virtues, nor how to use them, and apply them. --- They might learn from the Acts of the Apostles, (Chap. xv.) that as soon as a doubt and dispute was raised, whether the Gentiles converted by the apostles, were obliged to observe any of the ceremonies of the law of Moses, this first controversy about religion was not decided by the private judgment, or private spirit, even of those apostolical preachers, but by an assembly or council of the apostles and bishops, held at Jerusalem; as appears by the letter of the council sent to the Christians at Antioch. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, &c. to us, whom Christ promised to direct by the Spirit of truth; with whom, he assured us, he would remain to the end of the world. --- The very same method, as it is evident by the annals of Church history, hath been practised to the very time, and will be to the end of the world. It is the rule grounded on the command and promises of Christ, when he founded and established the Christian Church. All disputes about the sense of the Scriptures, and about points of the Christian belief, have been always decided by the successors of St. Peter, and the other apostles; even by general councils, when judged necessary: and they who, like Arius, obstinately refused to submit their private judgment to that of the Catholic Church, were always condemned, excommunicated, and cut off from the communion of the Church of Christ. --- Nor is this rule and this submission to be understood of the ignorant and unlearned only, but also of men accomplished in all kind of learning. The ignorant fall into errors for want of knowledge, and the learned are many times blinded by their pride and self-conceit. The sublime and profound mysteries, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, the manner of Christ's presence in the holy sacrament, are certainly above the reach of man's weak reason and capacity; much less are they the object of our senses, which are so often deceived. Let every reader of the sacred volumes, who pretends to be a competent judge of the sense, and of the truths revealed in them, reflect on the words which he finds in Isaias: (Chap. lv. 8, 9) For my thoughts are not your thoughts; nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. How then shall any one, by his private reason, pretend to judge, to know, to demonstrate, what is possible or impossible to the incomprehensible power of God? --- A self-conceited Socinian, big with the opinion he has of his own wit and knowledge, will boldly tell us, that to say or believe that three distinct persons are one and the same God, is a manifest contradiction. Must we believe him? Or the Christian Catholic Church, in all ages? That is, against the greatest authority upon earth: whether we consider the Church as the most illustrious society and body of men; or whether we consider the same Church as under the protection of Christ and his divine promises, to teach them all truth to the end of the world. Besides this, experience itself should make the said Socinian distrust his own judgment as to such a pretended contradiction, when he finds that the brightest wits, and most subtle philosophers, after all their study and search of natural causes and effects, for so many hundred years, by the light of their reason could never yet account for the most common and obvious things in nature, such as are the parts of matter, and extension, local motion, and the production of numberless vegetables and animals, which we see happen, but know not how. See the author of a short answer to the late Dr. Clark and Mr. Whiston, concerning the divinity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost. An. 1729. --- The latest writers among the pretended Reformers hesitate not to tell us, that what the Church and its councils have declared, as to Christ's real presence in the holy sacrament, is contradicted by all our senses; as if our senses, which are so often mistaken, were the supreme and only judges of such hidden mysteries. Another tells us, that for Christ to be truly and really present in many places, in ten thousand places at once, is a thing impossible in nature and reason; and his demonstrative proof is, that he knows it to be impossible. With this vain presumption, he runs on to this length of extravagant rashness, and boldly pronounces, that should he find such a proposition in the Bible, nay, though with his eyes he should see a man raise the dead, and declare that proposition true, he could not believe it: and merely because he knows it impossible: which is no more than to say, that it does not seem possible to his weak reason. I do not find that he offers to bring any other proof, but that it is contrary to his senses, and that God cannot assert a contradiction. And why must we take it for a contradiction, only because he tells us, he knows it to be so? It was certainly the safest way for him, to bring no reasons to shew it impossible to the infinite and incomprehensible power of the Almighty: this vain attempt would only have given new occasions to his learned antagonist, the author of the Single Combat, to expose his weakness even more than he has done. --- May not every Unitarian, every Arian, every Socinian, every Latitudinarian, every Free-thinker, tell us the same? And if this be a sufficient plea, none of them can be condemned of heresy or error. Calvin could never silence Servetus, (unless it were by lighting faggots round him) if he did but say, I know that three distinct persons cannot be one and the same God. It is a contradiction, and God cannot assert a contradiction. I know that the Son cannot be the same God with the Father. It is a contradiction, and therefore impossible. So that though I find clear texts in the Scriptures, that three give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one: though Christ, the Son of God, tells us, that he and the Father are one, or one thing; nay, though I should with my own eyes, see men raise the dead to confirm these mysteries, (as many are recorded to have done) and declare them to be revealed divine truths, I cannot believe them, because I know them to be false, to be nonsense, to be contradictions to reason and nature. The like the Free-thinker may tell us, with the Pelagians, as to the existence of original sin, that all men should become liable to eternal death for Adam's sinning; with the Manicheans, that men cannot have free will to do, or abstain from, sinful actions, and yet God know infallibly from eternity what they will do; with the Origenists, that God, who is infinite goodness itself, will not punish sinners eternally, for yielding to what the inclinations of their corrupt nature prompt them. They have the same right to tell all Christendom, that they know these pretended revealed mysteries to be nonsense, impossibilities, and contradictions. And every man's private judgment, when, with an air of confidence, he says, I know it, must pass for infallible; though he will not hear of the Catholic Church being infallible, under the promises of our Saviour, Christ. --- But to conclude this preface, already much longer than I designed, reason itself, as well as the experience we have of our own weak understanding, from the little we know even of natural things, might preserve every sober thinking man from such extravagant presumption, pride and self-conceited rashness, as to pretend to measure God's almighty and incomprehensible power by the narrow and shallow capacity of human understanding, or to know what is possible or impossible for Him that made all things out of nothing. In fine, let not human understanding exalt itself against the knowledge of God, but bring into a rational captivity and submission every thought to the obedience of Christ. Let every one humbly acknowledge with the great St. Augustine, whose learning and capacity, modestly speaking, were not inferior to those of any of those bold and rash pretenders to knowledge, that God can certainly do more than we can understand. Let us reflect with St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxxvii. p. 597. C.) that if we know not the things under our feet, we must not pretend to fathom the profound mysteries of God. [1] --- And, in the mean time, let us pray for those who are thus tossed to and fro with every wind and blast of different doctrines, (Ephesians iv. 14.) that God, of his infinite mercy, would enlighten their weak and blinded understanding with the light of the one true faith, and bring them to the one fold of his Catholic Church. (Witham)

____________________

[1] Naz. Orat. xxxvii. Greek: Mede ta en posin eidenai dunamenoi ... me theou bathesin embateuein.

====================

Gill: John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JOHN

The author of this Gospel is John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the brother of James the greater; he outlived the rest of the disciples, and wrote this Gospel after the other evangelists; and in it many things are recorded, which are not in the other Gospels; as various discourses of Christ, and miracles done by him; several incidents in his life, and circumstances that attended his sufferings and death: the occasion of it is generally thought to be the errors of Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ, asserted he was a mere man, and that he did not exist before his incarnation; and the design of it is to confute them: and it is easy to observe, that he begins his Gospel with the divinity of Christ; asserts him to be God, and proves him to be truly and properly so, by the works of creation, which were wrought by him, as well as shows that he was really man. Clemens ^a calls this Gospel of John, pneumatikon euaggelion "a spiritual Gospel", as indeed it is; consisting of the spiritual discourses of our Lord, on various occasions, both at the beginning, and in the course of his ministry, and especially a little before his sufferings and death: and the same writer observes, that John, the last of the evangelists, considering that in the other Gospels were declared the things relating to the body of Christ, that is, to him, as he was after the flesh; to his genealogy and birth as man; to what was done to him, or by him, in his infancy; to his baptism, temptations, journeys, &c. at the request of his familiar friends, and moved by the Spirit of God, composed this Gospel. Moreover, it is observed by some ^b, that the other three evangelists only record what was done by Christ, in one year after John the Baptist was cast into prison, as appears from Mat 4:12 wherefore John, at the entreaty of his friends, put these things into his Gospel, which were done or said by Christ, before John was cast into prison. He was called very early by Christ, though young; and was with him throughout the whole of his ministry, and was an eye and ear witness of what he here relates, and his testimony is to be received; he was the beloved disciple, he leaned on the bosom of Jesus, and had great intimacy with him; and might be privy to some things, which others were not acquainted with; and though he was a Galilean, and an unlearned man, Act 4:13 yet being endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, he was abundantly qualified to write this book: for what some ancient writers ^c say of him, that he was a priest, and wore a plate, that is, of gold upon his forehead, cannot be true, since he was not of the tribe of Levi; and besides, only the high priest wore that upon his mitre; unless they mean, as seems most likely, that he was a Christian bishop: perhaps the mistake may arise from John the Baptist, who was of the priestly order, and is called by some Jewish writers ^d, John the high priest. When and where this Gospel was written, is not certain; some say in ^e Asia, after he had wrote his Revelation in Patmos; and others say particularly, that it was wrote at Ephesus; the title of it in the Syriac version, signifies much, which runs thus;

"the holy Gospel, the preaching of John, which he spoke and published in Greek at Ephesus.''

And to the same purpose is the title of it in the Persic version;

"the Gospel of John, one of the twelve apostles, which was spoken in the city of Ephesus, in the Greek Roman tongue.''

College: John (Book Introduction)

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

Even the casual reader of the New Testament will notice that the first three accounts of Jesus' life are generally similar in their overall story line, whereas the fourth Gospel (John) is quite different. Scholars refer to Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the Synoptic Gospels (Synoptic = "seen together" or "as parallel") because of their similarities, but John is called, well . . . John (no special name). It is part of the New Testament collection known as the Johannine Writings (John, 1, 2, 3 John, and Revelation).

The differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John are readily apparent to the alert reader. For example the Synoptics all present one major trip of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, whereas John portrays Jesus as being in Judea and Jerusalem often. Indeed, for John the primary ministry of Jesus seems to be in Judea rather than the Galilean setting of the Synoptics. Another difference is seen in John's lack of true parables in his recorded teachings of Jesus. In the Synoptics, parables are the characteristic form of Jesus' teaching, with the often repeated introduction, "Jesus told them a parable, saying, 'the kingdom of God is like this . . . .'" John is also loaded with characters we do not find in the Synoptics: Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman at the well, and Lazarus, just to name a few. Furthermore, some of our most memorable Gospel phrases are not found in the Synoptics, but only in John: "In the beginning was the Word." "Behold the Lamb of God!" "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son." "I am the way, the truth, and the life." "I am the vine." "What is truth?" "It is finished!" "So send I you." By some estimates about 90% of the material found in John is not found in the Synoptic Gospels.

Christian scholars have noticed these differences from ancient times. Clement of Alexandria, writing approximately AD 185, called John the "spiritual Gospel." By this, Clement did not mean that John was nonhistorical, but that John was more concerned with internal, spiritual matters. In the more recent past overly critical scholars have pronounced the differences between John and the Synoptics to be irreconcilable and concluded that John is, in effect, the first commentary on the Gospels. This assumption (that John is historical fiction) exists in many commentaries of previous generations and is still held by some today. In general, though, current scholarship is much less certain about the nonhistorical character of John. In this commentary we assume that John relates a historically reliable version of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, albeit quite different from that of the Synoptic Gospels. These differences are part of what makes the study of this book so fascinating and will be discussed at the appropriate places through the commentary.

WHO IS THE AUTHOR?

We have been writing as if we knew for sure that John was the author of this Gospel. But this begs the question, how do we know for sure that John wrote it, and if so, which John was this? To answer the first question in complete honesty, we do not know for sure who wrote this book, for it was published anonymously in line with the publishing standards of the ancient world. We do have some very early witnesses to John as the author, however. The so-called "Muratorian Canon" (date disputed, but probably AD 150-200) says, "John, one of the disciples, wrote the fourth book of the Gospel." An early church leader by the name of Irenaeus (AD 185) is also an important witness. Tradition claims that Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp of Smyrna, and that Polycarp was a student of John himself. This means that Irenaeus is only one generation of believers removed from John, which gives added weight to what he writes. Irenaeus states in no uncertain terms that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel (in his book Against Heresies 3.1.1).

Some scholars have suggested, however, that the author of the Fourth Gospel was indeed a man named John, but not John the Apostle. It is true that there were other early Christian leaders named John, and it is possible that one of them is the true author of the Fourth Gospel. This issue may be addressed by determining the identity of the so-called "beloved disciple" within the book of John.

In John 21:20-24 the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is said to be the author of the book. If we work backwards through the book, we encounter the beloved disciple in other places. He is the one who recognizes Jesus after the resurrection during the miraculous catch of fish (21:7). Jesus entrusts the care for his mother, Mary, to this disciple while hanging on the cross (19:26-27). This disciple reclines next to Jesus at the Last Supper (13:23, 25). The beloved disciple is intended to be seen in some places where he is simply called the "other disciple." He is the one who races Peter to the tomb on Easter morning, and arrives first (20:3-5, probably indicating that he was younger than Peter). It is the "other disciple" who gains entrance for Peter and himself into the high priest's courtyard during the interrogation of Jesus (18:15-16). The "other disciple" may also be the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist who, along with Andrew, is pointed to Jesus by the Baptist himself (1:35-40).

The intimacy the beloved disciple has with Jesus points to one of the inner circle of disciples. In the Synoptic Gospels, this "inner circle" is pictured as Peter, James, and John. Peter is clearly not the author of the Fourth Gospel, because he is often portrayed as being with the "beloved disciple." James is an unlikely candidate, because he suffers early martyrdom at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). This leaves only John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James. This case is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Apostle John is named nowhere in the Fourth Gospel (nor is James, the only reference being to the "sons of Zebedee" at 21:2). It is not easy to understand why any other early Christian writer would have omitted the name of such a prominent Apostle. The solution to the mystery is that we are intended to see John himself as the author, and that he does not mention himself except as the "beloved disciple" or the "other disciple." We should also note that this is not an expression of pride (he "loved me best"). It is an expression of deep humility, wonderment, and thankfulness on the part of the author: Jesus loved me, even me?!

WHEN AND WHERE WAS IT WRITTEN?

Many locations have been suggested as the place of composition for the Gospel of John, but the traditional site is the city of Ephesus. The ruins of Ephesus are in southwestern Turkey, near the modern city of Kusadasi. Ephesus was one of the largest and most important cities of the Roman Empire in the first century. Ephesus was the site of the Temple of Artemis (sometimes incorrectly called the Temple of Diana, see Acts 19:28). This temple was recognized as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world according to the Greek geographer, Strabo. This large city (perhaps as many as 500,000 inhabitants) had a very mixed population. There was a strong Christian community in Ephesus, for Paul had a three-year ministry there in the AD 50s. The presence of the Temple of Artemis shows that there was also a strong pagan community, dedicated to the worship of the ancient Greek gods. Overall it was a large, cosmopolitan city, with a well-developed Greek culture. The common language of the city would have been Greek, the language of the New Testament.

Although it cannot be proven, there is strong tradition that the Apostle John, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, made his way to Ephesus sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. John, at least, was probably in Ephesus during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). After a few years, Domitian seems to have actively persecuted the Christian community, and this atmosphere of persecution probably forms the background for the Fourth Gospel, written sometime between AD 85-95. Also, by this time, the Jewish synagogue community had solidified in its opposition to the Christians, and Jews had to make a choice between the two. Jews who chose to believe in Jesus were "thrown out of the synagogue," a circumstance mentioned by John (9:22; 16:2).

This makes John one of the last books of the New Testament to be written, and certainly the last of the Gospels. If we theorize that John was about 20 when Jesus was crucified (AD 30), then he would have been 75-85 years old when this book was written, a very old man in the ancient world. For this and other reasons, it is likely that John had quite a bit of help in writing this book. Some scholars want to speak of the "Johannine community" or the "community of the beloved disciple" as the author, and there is some merit to this (cf. 21:24, "we know his testimony in true"). For our purposes, however, we will assume that the Apostle John, an eyewitness to many of the Gospel events, is the primary author of this book.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JOHN?

First, we would say that the style of John's writing is simple, but its thought is profound. John is written in some of the simplest Greek in the New Testament, although this does not mean it is "bad" Greek. It uses many common words, many monosyllabic words, and relatively short sentences. Yet the message of the book is profound. Fred Craddock notes that this is a Gospel in which "a child can wade and an elephant can swim."

A second characteristic of John is that he has laid out the bulk of the book as a series of lengthy accounts of works followed by words. We can characterize these combinations as miraculous signs followed by discourses or sermons of Jesus. John has only seven miracles, five of which are not found in the Synoptic Gospels. The story of each of these miracles is told at some length, and the material of the sermon that follows is primarily material not found in the Synoptics.

A third characteristic of the Fourth Gospel is the emphasis upon the personal ministry of Jesus. John relates several one-on-one situations (e.g., Jesus with Nicodemus, chapter 3), which teach us that Jesus had an active private ministry. It was not all public preaching, although this was important, too. In John we see a Jesus who cares for people and has time for them. This has another side, however. Sometimes it emphasizes the aloneness of Jesus. He often seems to be by himself without the support of the disciples or anyone else, a solitary figure.

Fourthly, John has a highly developed theological interest. He is particularly concerned with the matter of Christology, explaining who Jesus is in relation to God. John lays stress on the divinity of Jesus, often referring to him as the Son or the Son of God. He also stresses the humanity of Jesus: he is thirsty at Sychar and weeps at the tomb of Lazarus. John develops the theme of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the one God sent to his people.

John also explores the nature of God the Father, particularly through the Father-Son relationship between Jesus and God. John emphasizes that faith for the Christian must be in both the Father and in the Son. And John also has a great deal of discussion about the Holy Spirit. This is found throughout the book, but particularly in the Farewell Discourses of chapters 13-17. Here the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the coming Paraclete or Advocate for the community of believers.

A fifth characteristic might also be called the purpose of John. This purpose is strongly evangelistic, to bring the readers to faith. There is a constant contrast in the Fourth Gospel between believers and unbelievers, between faith and unfaith. Toward the end of the book John lays out his purpose in very straightforward language, "These [things] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (20:31).

HOW WILL THE STUDY OF JOHN

BE APPROACHED?

There are many possible ways to study John, but it is helpful to know what the primary emphasis will be in this commentary. Our main focus will be to listen carefully to what John is saying to us, to understand his intended message. This is not as easy as it may seem at first glance, for John is far removed from twentieth century English speakers. We want to know the general story, to pick up on the nuances, to be sensitive to the theological implications John is drawing out. For the most part we will not be concerned with evaluating the historical nature of John's account. When we bring historical data into the mix, it will be to help the reader understand the background of John's story, not to judge his accuracy. This is a modified narrative approach, an attempt to understand John's story as it is intended to be understood. While some may find this intolerably naïve, it is certainly the first and necessary step to a full appreciation of this marvelous book. If we can get you to listen to John carefully and hear his message, we will have succeeded in what we set out to do.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Note: There are many, many commentaries and other books related to the study of John. Dr. Bryant's favorites were the ones by Rudolf Bultmann, Barnabas Lindars, and Raymond Brown (even though he had sharp disagreements with all of them). Bultmann has a great deal of excellent material, although his theological bent makes him difficult for less advanced students. Lindars is excellent in technical discussion, but spiritually dry. Brown is wordy, but often gives great insights. I think the finest commentary on John is that of D.A. Carson. While Carson may be too conservative for some, he never avoids the hard questions and takes the time necessary to do thorough exegesis. Other outstanding choices for the more advanced student include the commentary of C.K. Barrett and George Beasley-Murray's commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series. For the less advanced student the commentary by Paul Butler contains a wealth of accessible material, although written for an earlier generation.

Abbot, Ezra, Andrew P. Peabody, and J.B. Lightfoot. The Fourth Gospel: Evidences External and Internal of Its Johannean Authorship . London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1892.

Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel . Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.

Bacon, Benjamin W. The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate: A Series of Essays on Problems Concerning the Origin and Value of the Anonymous Writings Attributed to the Apostle John . New York: Moffatt, 1910.

. The Gospel of the Hellenists . New York: Holt, n.d., c.1933.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of John . The Daily Study Bible Series. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956.

Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St. John . Second Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

. The Gospel of John and Judaism . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Bauer, Walter. Das Johannesevangelium . Tübingen: Mohr, 1925.

Beasley-Murray, George R. John . Word Biblical Commentary 36. Waco: Word, 1987.

Bernard, John H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. 2 volumes. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928.

Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997.

Boice, James M. Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Borchert, Gerald L. John 1-11 . The New American Commentary 25A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996.

Bowman, John. The Fourth Gospel and the Jews: A Study in R. Akiba, Esther, and the Gospel of John . Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975.

Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist, 1979.

. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave . 2 volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

. The Gospel according to John . 2 volumes. The Anchor Bible 29A-B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70.

Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.

Burney, Charles F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel . Oxford: Clarendon, 1922.

Butler, Paul. The Gospel of John . 2 volumes in 1. Bible Study Textbook Series. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1961.

Carpenter, Joseph E. The Johannine Writings: A Study of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel. London: Constable, 1927.

Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Charlesworth, James H., editor. John and Qumran . London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972.

Colwell, Ernest C., The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Its Aramaisms in the Light of Hellenistic Greek . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, n.d., c. 1931.

Craddock, Fred B. John . Knox Preaching Guides. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Johannine Circle . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975.

Culpepper, R. Alan. The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

. The Gospel and Letters of John . Interpreting Biblical Texts Series. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.

Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

Drummond, James. An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. New York: Scribner, 1904.

Eisler, Robert. The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel . London: Methuen, 1938.

Erdman, Charles R. The Gospel of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1917.

Fortna, Robert T. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Foster, R.C. Studies in the Life of Christ . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. Reprint, Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Gardner-Smith, Percival. St. John and the Synoptic Gospels . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Gnilka, J. Johannesevangelium . Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1983.

Godet, Frederic. Commentary on the Gospel of John . Translated by Timothy Dwight. 2 volumes. New York: Funk & Wagnall, 1886.

Haenchen, Ernst. A Commentary on the Gospel of John . Hermeneia Series. 2 volumes. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. (German ed., 1980.)

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel according to John . 2 volumes. New Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954.

Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question . Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.

Higgins, A.J.B. The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel . London: Lutterworth, 1960.

Hoskyns, Edwyn C. The Fourth Gospel. 2 volumes. London: Faber, 1940. Revised. ed. in one vol., 1947.

Howard, Wilbert F. Christianity According to St. John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946.

. The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation . London: Epworth, 1931.

Howard, Wilbert F., and Arthur J. Gossip. "The Gospel According to St. John." In Interpreter's Bible 7:437-811. Nashville: Abingdon/ Cokesbury, 1952.

Hunter, Archibald M. According to John . The Cambridge Bible Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1968.

. The Gospel According to John . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Jauncey, James H. The Compelling Indwelling [Studies on John 15]. Chicago: Moody, 1972.

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Scribners Reference, 1977.

Jervell, Jacob. Jesus in the Gospel of John . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

Kysar, Robert. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975.

. John . Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986.

. John's Story of Jesus . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

. John, the Maverick Gospel . Atlanta: John Knox, 1976. Reprinted Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993.

Lee, Edwin Kenneth. The Religious Thought of St. John . London: S.P.C.K., 1950.

Lenski, R.C.H. Interpretation of John's Gospel . Columbus: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936.

Leon-Dufour, Xavier. Dictionary of the New Testament . New York: Harper & Row, 1980.

Lightfoot, Robert H. St. John's Gospel . Edited by C.F. Evans. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John . New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

MacGregor, George H.C. The Gospel of John . The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928.

MacGregor, George H.C., and A.Q. Morton. The Structure of the Fourth Gospel. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1961.

Maier G. Johannes-Evangelium . BKNT 6. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1984.

Marsh, John. The Gospel of St. John . Westminster Pelican Commentaries. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.

Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel . New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

. The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters . New York: Paulist, 1979.

McGarvey, J.W., and P.Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel or a Harmony of the Four Gospels . Cincinnati: Standard, 1914.

Michaels, J.R. John . San Francisco: Harper, 1984.

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Montefiore, C.G., and H. Loewe. A Rabbinic Anthology. New York: Schocken Books, 1974.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to St. John . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

. Reflections on the Gospel of John . 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.

. Studies in the Fourth Gospel . Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1969.

Murray, John O.F. Jesus according to St. John . London: Longmans, 1936.

Nicol, W. Semeia in the Fourth Gospel . Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Nolloth, Charles F. The Fourth Evangelist: His Place in the Development of Religious Thought. London: J. Murray, 1925.

O'Neill, J.C. Who Did Jesus Think He Was? Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World . Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner, 1968.

Pack, Frank. The Gospel according to John . Living Word Commentaries. Austin: Sweet, 1975.

Palmer, Earl F. The Intimate Gospel . Waco: Word, 1978.

Plummer, Alfred. The Gospel according to St. John. Cambridge Greek Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Rainsford, Marcus. Our Lord Prays: Thoughts on John XVII . London: 1873; reprint Chicago: Moody, 1950.

Redlich, Edwin B. An Introduction to the Fourth Gospel . London: Longmans, 1939.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Rigg, William Harrison. The Fourth Gospel and Its Message for Today . London: Lutterworth, 1952.

Robinson, John A.T. The Priority of John . London: SCM Press, 1985.

Sanday, William. The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel . London: Macmillan, 1872.

. The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel . New York: Scribner, 1905.

Sanders, J.N. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.

Sanders, J.N., and B.A. Mastin. The Gospel according to St. John . Black's New Testament Commentaries. London: A.& C. Black, 1968.

Schlatter, Adolf. Der Evangelist Johannes . Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St John . 3 volumes. Translated by Cecily Hastings, et al. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

Sidebottom, E.M. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel . London: SPCK, 1961.

Sloyan, Gerard S. John . Interpretation Commentary Series. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988.

Smith, D. Moody. The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965.

. John . Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Smith, D. Moody, C. Clifton Black, and R. Alan Culpepper, eds. Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith . Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996.

Smith, Jonathan R. The Teaching of the Gospel of John . New York: Revell, 1903.

Stevens, George B. The Johannine Theology: A Study of the Doctrinal Contents of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John . New York: Scribner, 1894.

Strachan, Robert H. The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian? London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925.

. The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment . 3rd Revised Edition. London, S.C.M. Press, 1941.

Tasker, Randolph V.G. The Gospel according to St. John . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. London: Tyndale, 1960.

Temple, William. Readings in St. John's Gospel . 2 volumes. London: Macmillan, 1939-40; one volume edition, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1955.

Tenney, Merrill C. "The Gospel of John." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , 93-203. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

. John: the Gospel of Belief . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1948), 1954.

Turner, George A., and Julius R. Mantey. The Gospel according to John . The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Wead, David. The Literary Devices in John's Gospel . Basel: Komm. Friedrich Reinhardt, 1970.

Weber, Gerard P. and Robert Miller. Breaking Open the Gospel of John . Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1995.

Westcott, Brooke F. The Gospel according to St .John . London: John Murray, 1882.

. The Gospel according to St. John; the Greek Text with Introduction and Notes . 2 volumes. London: John Murray, 1908. Reprinted in 1 volume, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Wiles, Maurice F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Witherington, Ben, III. John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs

BDF A Greek Grammar of the New Testament by Blass, Debrunner and Funk

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

DNT Dictionary of the New Testament

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

KJV King James Version

LSJ Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell, Scott and Jones

NASB New American Standard Bible

LXX Septuagint

NIV New International Version

NLT New Living Translation

NovT Novum Testamentum

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: John (Outline)

OUTLINE

A good outline is more than half the battle in one's understanding and remembering the contents of any book. There is more than one way to break up and organize the materials in the Gospel according to John. Most students have observed two large divisions in its structure: (1) chapters 1-12 and (2) chapters 13-21. These larger units include a prologue (1:1-18) and an epilogue (chapter 21). Perhaps the easiest way to organize the materials of the book for commentary purposes might be to number the larger units of thought in the book (over fifty such units) and comment successively on these from the beginning of the book to the end. One may endeavor, however, to organize the materials of the Fourth Gospel in some kind of elaborate outline, structured under the two large divisions noted above. We follow this latter procedure below:

I. JESUS MANIFESTS HIMSELF TO THE WORLD - 1:1-12:50

A. The Prologue - 1:1-18

1. The Logos before Time - 1:1-4

a. His Relationship to Deity - 1:1-2

b. His Relationship to the World - 1:3-4

2. The Logos Manifested in History - 1:5-18

a. John the Baptist's Initial Testimony to the Logos - 1:5-13

b. The Logos in Flesh - 1:14-18

B. The Testimony of John the Baptist and of Jesus' First Disciples - 1:19-51

1. The Testimony of John the Baptist - 1:19-34

a. The Testimony of John to the Jewish Leaders - 1:19-28

b. The Testimony of John to the Jewish People - 1:29-34

2. Jesus' Calling and the Testifying of His First Disciples - 1:35-51

a. John the Baptist's Disciples Follow Jesus - 1:35-42

b. Jesus' Calling of Philip and Nathanael - 1:43-51

C. Jesus' First Signs - 2:1-25

1. Jesus Changes Water into Wine - 2:1-12

2. Jesus Cleanses the Temple - 2:13-22

3. Summary of Response to Jesus - 2:23-25

D. Jesus and Nicodemus - 3:1-36

1. The New Birth - 3:1-10

2. The Son of Man - 3:11-21

3. The Further Testimony of John the Baptist - 3:22-30

4. The Son's Testimony - 3:31-36

E. Jesus and the Samaritans - 4:1-42

1. Introduction - 4:1-4

2. Jesus and the Woman of Samaria - 4:5-30

a. The Setting - 4:5-6

b. Jesus' Request for Water - 4:7-9

c. Living Water - 4:10-15

d. The Woman Revealed - 4:16-19

e. Jesus Reveals Himself - 4:20-26

f. Reactions to Jesus - 4:27-30

3. Jesus and the Samaritans - 4:31-42

a. Jesus and the Testifying of His disciples - 4:31-38

b. Firsthand and Secondhand Testimony - 4:39-42

F. Jesus' Healing of the Nobleman's Son, the Second Sign at Cana - 4:43-54

1. Introduction - 4:43-45

2. The Healing of the Nobleman's Son - 4:46-54

G. Jesus and the Major Jewish Festivals - 5:1-12:50

1. A Feast, the Sabbath, and Jesus' Healing at the Pool in Jerusalem - 5:1-47

a. The Healing on the Sabbath - 5:1-9a

b. Violations of the Sabbath and the Healed Man's Defense - 5:9b-15

c. Violations of the Sabbath and Jesus' Defense - 5:16-18

d. Jesus' Discourse on the Sabbath and His Work - 5:19-29

e. Jesus' Defense and the Four Witnesses - 5:30-47

2. The Passover and Jesus' Explanation of the Exodus - 6:1-71

a. The Background - 6:1-4

b. Jesus' Feeding of the Five Thousand - 6:5-13

c. Jesus, Not That Kind of King - 6:14-15

d. Jesus' Walking on the Sea of Galilee - 6:16-21

e. The Crowds' Search for Jesus - 6:22-25

f. Two Discourses on the Bread of Life - 6:26-34, 35-40

g. Conflict Concerning Bread from Heaven and Flesh and Blood - 6:41-59

h. Rejection and Acceptance of Jesus - 6:60-71

3. Jesus at Tabernacles - 7:1-52

a. Introduction: Question If Jesus Would Go to This Feast - 7:1-13

b. Jesus' Discourses Spoken during the Feast - 7:14-36

c. Jesus' Discourses Spoken on the Last Day of the Feast and the Audience's Response to it - 7:37-52

d. Textual Parenthesis: The Woman Taken in Adultery - 7:53-8:11

4. The Light of Tabernacles and Jesus' Great Confrontation with the Jews - 8:12-59

a. Jesus Discourse at the Temple Treasury: Jesus the Light of the World and the Authority of His Testimony to Himself - 8:12-20

b. Jesus' Attack on the Jews Who Disbelieved and the Origin of His Testimony and the Problem of Who He Is - 8:21-30

c. Truth, Sin, Freedom, and the Children of Abraham - 8:31-59

5. Healing of the Man Born Blind - 9:1-41

a. The Setting - 9:1-5

b. The Healing - 9:6-7

c. Interrogations of the Man - 9:8-34

(1) Questions Posed by the Neighbors and Friends - 9:8-12

(2) Preliminary Quizzing by Some Pharisees - 9:13-17

(3) The Man's Parents Questioned by the Jews - 9:18-23

(4) The Man Questioned a Second Time by the Jews, and Excommunicated - 9:24-34

d. Who Sees and Who Is Blind? Jesus' Answer - 9:35-41

6. The Feast of Dedication and the Shepherd Analogy - 10:1-42

a. Jesus, the Sheepgate, and the Shepherd - 10:1-21

(1) Figures from Shepherd Life - 10:1-6

(2) Explaining the Figure - 10:7-18

(a) Jesus is the Sheepgate - 10:7-10

(b) Jesus is the Good (or Model) Shepherd - 10:11-18

(3) Response to Jesus' Explanation: Rejection of Jesus by the Jews - 10:19-21

b. Jesus at the Feast of Dedication - 10:22-39

(1) Jesus the Messiah - 10:22-31

(a) Setting and Questions: "Is Jesus the Messiah?" - 10:22-24

(b) Jesus' Reply - 10:25-30

(c) Reaction: Attempt to Stone Jesus - 10:31

(2) Jesus the Son of God - 10:32-39

(a) The Question: Is Jesus Making Himself Equal with God - 10:32-33

(b) Jesus' Response - 10:34-38

(c) Reaction: Attempt to Arrest Jesus - 10:39

c. Jesus in Retrogression and Progression Simultaneously - 10:40-42

7. Lazarus and the Passover Plot - 11:1-57

a. Lazarus - 11:1-44

(1) Setting - 11:1-6

(2) Jesus' Discussion with the Disciples - 11:7-16

(3) Jesus and Martha: Jesus the Resurrection and the Life - 11:17-27

(4) Jesus and Mary and the Grieved - 11:28-37

(5) Jesus' Raising of Lazarus - 11:38-44

b. The Passover Plot to Kill Jesus - 11:45-53

c. Retreat of Jesus - 11:54-57

8. Preparation for Passover and Death - 12:1-50

a. Mary's Anointing of Jesus - 12:1-11

b. Jesus' Triumphal Entry - 12:12-19

c. Gentiles Prompt Jesus' Announcement of His Hour - 12:20-36

d. The Tragedy of Unbelief, Past and Present - 12:37-43

e. The Call to Faith Still Stands - 12:44-50

II. JESUS' MANIFESTATION OF HIMSELF IN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION - 13:1-21:25

A. Jesus' Manifestation of Himself to His Disciples in His Farewell Discourses - 13:1-17:26

1. At the Last Supper - 13:1-38

a. Jesus' Washing of His Disciples' Feet - 13:1-17

b. Jesus' Prediction of Judas' Betrayal - 13:18-30

c. Jesus' Prediction of Peter's Denial; The New Commandment (13:34) - 13:31-38

2. Promises of Jesus - 14:1-31

a. Promises of an Abode where Jesus Is Going - 14:1-4

b. Jesus the Way to the Father - 14:5-12

c. Doing Greater Works than Jesus; Asking in Jesus' Name - 14:13-14

d. Jesus' Departure and the Spirit's Coming - 14:15-31

3. More Commands and Promises of Jesus - 15:1-27

a. Jesus, the Vine; the Disciples, the Branches; The New Commandment Given (15:13) - 15:1-17

b. Hatred from the World - 15:18-25

c. The Spirit's Mission Like That of the Disciples: to Bear Witness to Jesus - 15:26-27

4. Still More Promises and Commands - 16:1-33

a. The Works of Disbelief - 16:1-4

b. The Works of the Spirit - 16:5-15

c. Joy Greater than Trouble - 16:16-33

5. Jesus' Prayer - 17:1-26

a. For His Glorification - 17:1-5

b. For His Disciples - 17:6-19

c. For Those Who Will Believe - 17:20-26

(1) For Unity - 17:20-23

(2) For Seeing Jesus' Glory - 17:24-26

B. Jesus' Trial and Crucifixion - 18:1-19:42

1. Jesus' Arrest - 18:1-11

2. Jesus' Trial before Annas - 18:12-14

3. Peter's First Denial of Jesus - 18:15-18

4. Jesus Interrogated before Annas - 18:19-24

5. Peter's Second and Third Denials of Jesus - 18:25-27

6. Jesus' Trial before Pilate - 18:28-19:16

a. Pilate Doubtful of the Prosecution - 18:28-32

b. Pilate Examines Jesus - 18:33-38a

c. Barabbas - 18:38b-40

d. The Flogging of Jesus and Delivering Over of Him to the Jews by Pilate - 19:1-16

7. The Crucifixion of Jesus - 19:17-30

8. Piercing Jesus' Side - 19:31-37

9. Jesus' Burial - 19:38-42

C. The Resurrection of Jesus - 20:1-21:25

1. Peter and John at the Empty Tomb - 20:1-9

2. Jesus' Appearance to Mary - 20:10-18

3. Jesus' Appearance to the Disciples with Thomas Absent - 20:19-23

4. Jesus' Appearance to his Disciples with Thomas Present - 20:24-29

5. The Purpose of this Gospel - 20:30-31

6. Jesus' Appearance to Seven Disciples and the Great Haul of Fish - 21:1-14

7. Jesus' Admonition to Peter about Peter - 21:15-19

8. Jesus' Admonition to Peter about John - 21:20-23

9. Testimony to the Truthfulness of the Contents of the Fourth Gospel - 21:24

10. The Selective Nature of the Contents of the Fourth Gospel - 21:25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: John (Book Introduction)

NOTICE TO THE READER.

Gospel of John Intro

——o——

AS it has been found impossible to compress the Translation of the Commentary upon S. John's Gospel into one volume, it is now given in two, of which this is the first. The second volume comprises the remainder of the Gospel, and the Commentary of À Lapide upon S. John's Epistles.

It is with great pleasure I present this portion of this great Commentary to the English reader. Admirable as Cornelius à Lapide almost invariably is in his exposition of Holy Scripture, on the Gospel of S. John he seems to me to surpass himself. Beginning from the Incarnation of the Divine Word, nothing can be more masterly, nothing more magnificent, than the way in which he shows that the whole sacramental system of the Catholic Church of Christ is the necessary consequence and complement, as well as the extension of the Incarnation, Divinely planned and ordained for the eternal salvation of the whole human race. Granted the truth of the Incarnation as an objective fact, dealing with realities both in the spiritual and immaterial universe, and also in the material and physical universe, in this world of time and sense, as we call it, I do not see how it is possible to dispute our author's conclusions, taken as a whole.

The translation of Vol. 1. is by myself as far as the end of the 6th chapter. From the 27th verse of 6th chapter to the end, I have translated practically without any abridgment or omission, and also with greater literalness than I sometimes do, on account of the surpassing importance of the doctrine treated of, and the controversies resulting from it. Chapters vii.-x. are by the Rev. James Bliss, Rector of Manningford Bruce. For the last chapter, the 11th, I am indebted to the Rev. S. J. Eales, M.A., D.C.L., lately Principal of S. Boniface's College, Warminster, and now Principal of the Grove College, Addlestone, Surrey.

In Volume II. the Translation of chap. xiii. is by a young scholar, Mr. Macpherson. The remainder of the Gospel is by my most kind friend, Mr. Bliss, and myself.

Of S. John's Epistles, the first three chapters of the First Epistle are by Mr. Bliss, the remaining two chapters, and the Second and Third Epistles, are by myself.

T. W. Mossman.

THE PREFACE

TO

S. JOHN'S GOSPEL

——o——

S. JOHN the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and Salome, wrote this Gospel in Asia in the Greek language, towards the end of his life, after his return from Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse.

His reasons for writing were two. The first was that he might confute the heretics Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied Christ's Divinity, and taught that He was a mere man. The second was to supply the omissions of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Hence S. John records at length what Christ did during the first year of His ministry, which the other three had for the most part passed over.

Listen to S. Jerome in his preface to S. Matthew. "Last was John, the Apostle and Evangelist, whom Jesus loved the best, who lay on the Lord's bosom, and drank of the purest streams of His doctrines. When he was in Asia, at a time when the seeds of the heresies of Cerinthus, Ebion and the rest, who denied that Christ had come in the flesh, those whom in his Epistle he calls Antichrists, and whom the Apostle Paul frequently refutes, he was constrained by well nigh all the bishops who were at that time in Asia, and by the deputies of many other Churches, to write of the deep things of the Divinity of our Saviour, and to 'break through,'^* as it were, to the Word of God by a kind of happy temerity. Whence also we are told in ecclesiastical history that when he was urged by the brethren to write, he agreed to do so, on condition that they should all fast, and pray to God in common. When the fast was ended, being filled with the power of revelation, he burst forth with the preface coming straight from above, In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. "

Others add that S. John's beginning to write was preceded by lightnings and thunderings, as though he had been another Moses, who thus received the Law of God (Exod. xix.)

Baronius shows that S. John wrote his Gospel in the year of Christ 99, or sixty-six years after the Ascension. This was the first year of the reign of Nerva, and the twenty-seventh after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

As then Isaiah surpassed all the rest of the Prophets in sublimity, so did John the other Evangelists. Last in time, he is first in dignity and perfection. Thus in the first chapter of Ezekiel he is compared to an eagle flying above all other birds. Thus his dignity and special excellence, as well as his consequent obscurity, may be considered under three heads.

First, his matter and scope.  S. John alone of set purpose treats of the Divinity of Christ, of the origin, eternity, and generation of the Word, of the spiration of the Holy Spirit, of the unity of the Godhead, and of the Divine relations and attributes. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are concerned with the actions of Christ's humanity. This is why the Fathers derive almost all their arguments against the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians and such like heretics from S. John.

The second is the order of time. We know that the Church, like the dawning of the day, advanced by the succession of time to the perfect day of the knowledge of the mysteries of the faith. Thus the sacred writers of the New Testament, the Apostles and Evangelists, write far more clearly concerning them than do Moses and the Prophets of the Old Testament. John was the last of all, and his Gospel was his last work. He composed it therefore as a sort of crown of all the sacred books.

The third is the author.  S. John alone was counted worthy to win the laurels of all saints. For he is in very deed a theologian, or rather the prince of theologians. The same is an apostle, a prophet and an evangelist. The same is a priest, a bishop, a high priest, a virgin, and a martyr. That S. John always remained a virgin is asserted by all the ancient writers, expressly by Tertullian ( Lib. de monogam .) and S. Jerome ( Lib. 1 contra. Jovin .). To him therefore as a virgin Christ from His cross commended His Virgin Mother. For "blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God," as the Truth Itself declares.

The Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, made known to this His most chaste and beloved friend, who reclined upon His breast, the hidden things and sacraments of the Divinity, which had been kept-secret from the foundation of the world. John hath declared the same to us, as a son of thunder, thundering and lightening the whole world with the Deity of the Word. As with a flaming thunderbolt "he hath given shine to the world;" and with the fire of love he hath inflamed it. Let that speech of Christ, His longest and His last, bear witness, which He made after supper (S. John xiii. &c.), which breathes of nothing but the ardour of Divine love.

See more to the same effect in S. Cyril, S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostom ( Præm. in Joan .). Indeed, S. Chrysostom dares to say that S. John in his Gospel hath taught the angels the secrets of the Incarnate Word, such as before they knew not, and that therefore he is the Doctor of the cherubim and the seraphim. He proves this from the passage of S. Paul in Ephesians iii., "that there might be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places by the Church the multiform wisdom of God." "If," he says, "the principalities and powers, the cherubim and seraphim, have learned these things through the Church, it is very evident that the angels listen to him with the deepest attention. Not slight therefore is the honour which we gain in that the angels are our fellow-disciples in the things that they knew not.

CANONS THROWING LIGHT

upon the

INTERPRETATION OF S. JOHN'S GOSPEL.

——o——

JOHN has a style peculiar to himself, entirely different from that of the other Evangelists and sacred writers. For as an eagle at one time he raises himself above all, at another time he stoops down to the earth, as it were for his prey, that with the rusticity of his style he may capture the simple. At one time he is as wise as the cherubim, at another time he burns as do the seraphim. The reason is because John was most like Christ, and most dear to Him; and he in turn loved Christ supremely. Therefore at His Last Supper he reclined upon His breast. From this source, therefore, he sucked in, as it were, the mind, the wisdom, and the burning love of Christ. Wherefore, when thou readest and hearest John, think that thou readest and hearest Christ. For Christ hath transfused His own spirit and His own love into S. John.

2. Although John by the consent of all wrote his Gospel in Greek for Greeks, yet because he himself was a Hebrew, and from love of this primeval language, which was his native tongue, he abounds above the rest in Hebrew phrases and idioms. Hence to understand him we require a knowledge of two, or indeed of three languages—Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Thus he Hebraizes in his frequent use of and for like as ( sicut ) as Solomon does in Proverbs, where he compares like with like by means of the conjunction and .   And in such instances is a mark of similitude, and has the same meaning as like as ( sicut ). On the other hand, he Grecizes in his use of perchance ( forsitan ) for surely . In John viii. 19 the Greek particle άν expresses affirmation, not uncertainty. So also in viii. 43 ού δύνασθε, ye are not able, is put for ye are not willing. He likewise constantly duplicates the Hebrew Amen , when the other Evangelists only express it once. The reasons for this diversity are examined in chap. iii. 2.

3. John abounds more in the discourses and disputations of Christ with the Jews than in the things that were done by Him. Not that he relates all the discourses and disputations of Christ, but such as were of greater importance. Especially he gives a compendious account of those in which Christ proved that He was God as well as man.

4. In S. John Christ speaks sometimes as God, and sometimes as man. There is need therefore of a careful examination of contexts to distinguish one from the other.

5. When Christ says, as He often does in S. John, that He "does, or says nothing of Himself," or that "not He, but the Father, does, or says this, or that" there must be understood "originally" and "alone." As thus, "neither alone, nor as man perform I these things: nor yet as God am I the first originator of them; but it is God the Father, who together with His Divine essence communicates to Me omniscience and omnipotence, even the power of doing all things."

6. Although the Apostles and other saints wrought miracles, yet Christ in S. John's Gospel often proves that He is the Messiah and God by the miracles which were done by Him. This proof is a true and effectual one; first, because He Himself made direct use of it. For a miracle as the work of God, and the Voice of the prime Verity, is an infallible proof of that which it is brought forward to confirm. Second, because Christ wrought them by His own power and authority, which He could not have done unless He had been God of God. Thus then He did them that they might appear to proceed from Him as from God, the original source of miracles. For the saints do not work miracles by their own authority, but by the invocation of the name of God, or Christ. Let us add that the miracles which were done by Christ were foretold by Isaiah and the other prophets, that they might be indices and marks of the Messiah, as will appear in chap. xi. 4.

7. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record for the most part the acts of the last year, and the last but one of Christ's ministry, that is to say, what He did after the imprisonment of S. John the Baptist. But S. John's Gospel for the most part gives an account of the two preceding years. This consideration will solve many seeming discrepancies between S. John and the other Evangelists. So S. Augustine in his preface.

8. There is frequently in S. John both great force as well as obscurity in the adverbs and conjunctions of causation, influence, connection, and so on, in such a manner that a single particle will often include and point out the entire meaning of a passage. Hence these particles must be most carefully examined and weighed, as I shall show in each place.

9. The particles that , wherefore , on account of which , and the like do not always signify the cause, or the end intended, but often only a consequence or result. This is especially the case if an event has been certainly foreseen, and therefore could not happen otherwise. This is plain from chap. xii. 38, 39, where it said, They believed not on Him , that the saying of Isaias might be fulfilled : and shortly afterwards, Wherefore they could not believe , because Isaias said again , He hath blinded their eyes. For the reason why the Jews would not believe in Christ was not the prediction of Isaiah foretelling that they would not believe ( non credituros ), but the hardness of heart and malice of the Jews, which as a sort of objective cause preceded Isaiah's prophecy. For Isaiah foretold that the Jews were not about to believe, because in truth they themselves through their own malice and obstinacy were not going to do so. So S. Chryostom and others.

10. By the Jews S. John sometimes means the rulers only, sometimes the people only. Thus he represents the Jews at one time as opposing, at another time as favouring Christ. For the people were His friends, the rulers were His adversaries.

11. By a He braism the present tense often signifies not an action issuing in a result, but a force, or power of nature, or the act (in the sense of will or intention, Trans .) of the agent, even in cases where the effect is opposed by the subject, or in some other way. Thus in i. 9 it is said that Christ by His advent gave light to the world. That means, so far as He was concerned. For many, like the Jews, refused to receive this light, as he immediately adds, and continued in the darkness of their unbelief.

12. The particles as if , so as , and the like, because they correspond to the Hebrew caph , do not always signify likeness, but the truth of a fact, or assertion. Thus in i. 14, we have seen His glory , as of the Only Begotten , means, "we have seen the glory of the Only Begotten to be truly such, and so great as became Him who was indeed the Only Begotten Son of God the Father." So S. Chrysostom and others.

13. John, following the Hebrew idiom, sometimes takes words of inceptive action to signify the beginning of something that is done; but sometimes to signify continuation, that a work is in progress; and sometimes, that a work has been perfected and accomplished. Thus we must not be surprised, if sometimes that which increases, or is being perfected, is spoken of as if it were just commencing, and vice versa. An example of inceptive action is to be found in xvi. 6, where Peter, resisting Christ desiring to wash his feet, says, Lord , dost Thou wash my feet ? Dost Thou wash ? that is, "Dost Thou wish, prepare, begin to wash?" There is an example of continued action in ii. 11 , where, after the miracle of the conversion of water into wine, it is added, And His disciples believed in Him : that is, they went on believing, they increased, and were confirmed in faith. For they had already before this believed in Christ, for if they had not believed in Him, they would not have followed Him as His disciples. There is an example of a perfected action in xi 15, where Christ, when about, at the close of His life, to raise up Lazarus, said, I am glad for your sakes , that ye may believe. That is, " that by means of this My last and greatest miracle ye may be altogether made perfect in your belief in Me." Again, in xx. 17, Jesus appearing after His resurrection to Mary Magdalene, who had fallen at His feet, said, Touch Me not . That is, "Do not delay, and waste time in touching My feet, but go quickly, and tell the Apostles, who are very sorrowful because of My death, that I have risen again."

14. John, after the Hebrew idiom, asserts and confirms over again what he had already asserted, by a denial of the contrary. This is especially the case when the subject matter is of importance, and is doubted about by many, so that it requires strong confirmation. Thus in i. 20 , when John the Baptist is asked by the Jews if he were the Christ, he confessed , and denied not , but confessed , I am not the Christ. And in i. 3, All things were made by Him , and without Him was not anything made that was made.

15. John delights in calling Christ the Life , and the Light , for reasons which I will give hereafter. He has several other similar and peculiar expressions. For instance, he often uses the word judgment for condemnation which takes place in judgement. In other places he uses judgment for the secret judgments and decrees of God, because they are just. Sins he calls darkness. The saints he calls sons of light. That which is true and just he calls the truth. In vi. 27, for procure food , or labour for food he has ε̉ζγάεσθα βζω̃σιν. In the 9th chap., when Jesus is asked by the Jews, Who art Thou? He answers, The Beginning, who also am speaking unto you.

16. John relates that Christ said previously certain things, the when and the where of His saying which He had not previously mentioned. For studying brevity, he considered it sufficient to relate them once. Thus in the 11th chap. he says that Martha said to her sister Mary, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. Yet he had not previously related that Christ bade Martha to call Magdalene; for his mentioning that Martha, by Christ's command, called her sister was sufficient to show that Christ had so commanded. In the same chapter Christ saith to Martha, Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe, thou wouldest see the glory of God? Yet there is no previous account of Christ saying this. Also in vi. 36, Christ says, But I said unto you, that ye also have seen Me and believe not. Yet we nowhere recall that Christ previously so said.

17. The miracles of Christ which John alone records are as follows:- The conversion of water into wine, chap. ii. The first expulsion of the sellers from the Temple, in the same chapter. The healing of the sick child of the nobleman, iv. 47. The healing of the paralytic at the pool in the sheep-market, chap. v. Giving sight to the man born blind, chap. ix. Raising Lazarus from the dead, chap. xi. The falling of Judas and the servants to the earth, when they came to take Jesus, xviii. 6. The flow of blood and water from the side of Christ after He was dead, xix. 34. The multiplication of the fishes, xxi. 6.

COMMENTATORS

Very many persons have written commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, and among them the principal Greek and Latin Fathers. Among the Greeks, after Origen, who composed thirty-two tomes, or books, upon this Gospel, were S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who has written a learned and very excellent commentary. He has written a didactic work, and is especially able and skilful in expounding the literal sense.  S. Cyril's commentary on S. John's Gospel consisted originally of twelve books. But of these the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth have perished. Their loss has been supplied, by Clictovæus, a doctor of Paris, whose work has been mistaken by many learned men for the original of S. Cyril.

A second commentator is S. Chrysostom, who seems to have been imbued with the very spirit of S. John himself. He wrote eighty seven homilies on this Gospel.

A third is Theophylact, and a fourth Euthymius. They, as is usual with them, follow S. Chrysostom. Theophylact is the more diffuse of the two.

A fifth commentator is Nonnus Panopolitanus, an Egyptian, and a very eloquent writer, who, as Suidas says, explained the virgin theologian, that is, John the Evangelist, in heroic verses. Although the commentary of Nonnus can properly only be called a paraphrase, nevertheless in many places he points out and illustrates the meaning of the Evangelist in pithy sentences.

Among the Latins the first and chief commentator is S. Augustine, who has written systematically upon the whole Gospel in one hundred and twenty-four tractates.

The second is Venerable Bede, who follows S. Augustine passim, and often word for word.

A third commentary is what is called the Gloss. Where observe that the Gloss is tripartite. The first is the Interlinear Gloss, so called because written between the lines of the sacred text. For that reason it is brief, but pithy, and treats many things in the Gospel learnedly and usefully. The second is the Marginal Gloss, because written on the margin of the text. To this is subjoined the Gloss of Nicolas Lyra. This Nicolas was called Lyra from a village in Normandy. He was a Jew by birth, and was converted to Christianity. He entered the Franciscan Order, and taught scholastic theology, A.D. 1320. He was a learned man, and skilled in Hebrew. He wrote his Gloss upon S. John and the other sacred writers, expounding them literally, and became so celebrated that it has passed into a proverb—

"If Lyra's hand had erst not swept his lyre,

  Our theologians had not danced in choir."

However, we must keep this in mind, that he is too credulous with regard to Jewish fables and puerilities, giving too much heed to writers of his own nation, to the Rabbin, and especially to R. Salomon, who is a great retailer of fables.

In later ages, and especially in our own day, many commentaries have been written upon this Gospel. Pre-eminent among them are Maldonatus, of the Society of Jesus, who is copious, acute, elegant, and learned: Cornelius Jansen, who is exact, solid, and to be depended upon: Frank Toletus, who displays a sound judgment, especially in the application of metaphors and similitudes. Sebastian Barradi has written a good literal commentary, mingling with it moral reflections. He is useful to preachers in affording materials for sermons, and showing how to treat them. Frank Ribera is brief, but as usual excellent and learned. Frank Lucas is entirely literal, but he uses the letter to draw the reader to pious affections.

Among the heretics, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Musculus, Bullinger, Brentius, Calvin, and Beza have written upon S. John's Gospel. Of all these authors Augustinus Marloratus has made a catena, which I read through and refuted when I was in Belgium.

^* (Cf. Exod. xix. 21, Trans.) Return to the place.